Cheque dishonour presumption: bare claim of security cheque failed, and conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld.

Admitted issuance of the cheques and acknowledgment of signatures attracted the statutory presumptions of consideration and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions by a probable defence, because the plea that the cheques were only security cheques was not supported by evidence sufficient to negate a legally enforceable debt or liability. The record showed business dealings, presentation and dishonour of the cheques, timely service of demand notice, and non-payment within the statutory period. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld, and the concurrent findings, sentence, and compensation were found free from illegality or impropriety.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable, including whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption by showing that the cheques were issued only as security and not in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The admitted issuance of the cheques and the petitioner's acknowledgment of his signatures attracted the statutory presumptions as to consideration and issuance for discharge of liability. The materials on record showed a business transaction between the parties, presentation and dishonour of the cheques, service of demand notice within the statutory time, and failure to make payment within the prescribed period. The defence that the cheques were mere security cheques was not found sufficient to displace the presumption, as the evidence did not establish a probable version negating the existence of debt or liability. The Courts below were found to have properly appreciated the evidence and committed no illegality or impropriety in recording guilt and awarding sentence and compensation.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance and signature on a cheque are admitted, the statutory presumptions apply, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence showing absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability; a bare plea of security cheque is insufficient without supporting proof.

---