Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless rebutted by credible evidence; conviction upheld.

Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut them with a probable defence supported by material evidence. The accused's plea that the cheque was lost, stop-payment instructions had been issued, and the complainant lacked financial capacity was found unsupported by documentary proof, bank intimation, or any complaint. The complainant's documents were accepted as proving the transaction and liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld because the presumptions were not displaced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the conviction under Section 138 of that Act was sustainable.

Analysis: The cheque and the signature thereon were admitted. Once issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by a probable defence either through cross-examination or defence evidence. The defence that the cheque was lost, that stop-payment instructions had been issued, and that the complainant lacked financial capacity was found to be unsupported by material particulars or documentary proof. The accused did not produce evidence of intimation to the bank, did not lodge any complaint, and did not establish a credible explanation for the cheque's misuse. The complainant's version and supporting documents were accepted as sufficient to prove the transaction and liability.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of the cheque and signature raises statutory presumptions of consideration and liability, and the accused must displace them by a probable defence supported by material evidence.

---