Cheque signature admission raises a rebuttable presumption of liability, rebuttable only by a probable defence with evidence.

Admission of signature on a cheque triggers the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must place a probable defence on record with supporting evidence; a bare denial or unsupported claim of misuse of a blank cheque is insufficient. The text also notes that revisional interference may be justified where concurrent acquittal findings ignore the statutory presumption and the absence of rebuttal, amounting to miscarriage of justice.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused's admitted signature on the cheque and the dishonour of the cheque attracted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the complainant's revision against acquittal could succeed.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a debt or other liability. The presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must bring on record a probable defence supported by evidence; a bare denial of liability or a plea that a blank cheque was misused is not enough. On the facts, the accused admitted his signatures and transaction, but adduced no evidence to rebut the presumption. The concurrent findings of the courts below were found to have overlooked the statutory presumption and the absence of rebuttal, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The revision succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the matter was remanded for fresh decision after reappreciation of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of signature on a cheque raises a mandatory rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable liability, which can be displaced only by a probable and evidenced defence, and a revisional court may interfere with concurrent acquittal where the findings ignore this legal presumption and cause miscarriage of justice.

---