Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was unrebutted, making the Section 138 conviction sustainable.

Admission of the cheque and the drawer's signature triggered the statutory presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence; mere denial, an unsupported security-cheque explanation, and absence of a reply notice or complaint about misuse were insufficient. The trial court's doubts about the complainant's financial capacity were unsupported by the record, and the ingredients of Section 138 were held established. The acquittal was therefore treated as unsustainable, and conviction under Section 138 was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was perverse and required interference in appeal, and whether the admitted cheque and signature raised the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant.

Analysis: The cheque and the accused's signature were admitted, which attracted the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The presumption was rebuttable, but mere denial or an unsubstantiated explanation was insufficient to displace it. The accused did not issue any reply notice, did not lodge any complaint regarding misuse of the cheque, and did not place supporting material for the defence that the cheque was given as security to a third party for a different transaction. The trial court's view on the complainant's financial capacity was found to be unsupported by the record, and the evidence was held sufficient to establish the ingredients of Section 138.

Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be unsustainable, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 stood unrebutted, and conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted in favour of the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque and the drawer's signature are admitted, the statutory presumption of issuance towards a legally enforceable debt arises, and the accused must rebut it by credible evidence rather than mere denial or unsupported explanation.

---