Statutory presumptions under cheque dishonour law prevailed where the drawer admitted signatures and failed to rebut liability.

Where the drawer admitted the cheque and signatures, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused had to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but a claim that the cheque was blank and given to a third person was not supported by cogent evidence. The complainant's failure to produce income-tax returns or a written loan document did not, on these facts, displace the statutory presumptions. In revision, interference with concurrent findings was not justified absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision when the drawer admitted the cheque and signatures but failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of that Act.

Analysis: Once the accused admitted issuance of the cheque and his signatures thereon, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The defence of a blank cheque allegedly given to a third person was not substantiated by any cogent evidence, and no material was brought on record to dislodge the complainant's version. The complainant's failure to produce income-tax returns or a written loan document did not, by itself, rebut the statutory presumptions in the facts of the case. In revisional jurisdiction, interference with concurrent findings is limited and is not warranted absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.

---