Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act shift the burden to the accused once signature and execution are admitted.

Admission of the cheque and signature in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution triggered the rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The accused then bore the burden of rebutting those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but no probable defence, reply notice, or material rebuttal was shown. The courts below erred by placing the primary burden on the complainant to prove the debt independently despite the reverse onus. The acquittal was set aside, and the complaint was held proved, warranting conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable when the accused admitted the cheque and signature but did not rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act.

Analysis: Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumptions as to consideration and issuance in discharge of a debt or liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut those presumptions on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The courts below wrongly placed the primary burden on the complainant to independently prove the debt despite the operation of the reverse onus under Section 139. The absence of a reply notice and the failure to offer a probable defence supported the complainant's case. The acquittal was therefore based on an incorrect understanding of the legal burden in cheque dishonour prosecutions.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held proved; conviction and sentence were warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 create a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder, and the accused must displace it by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities.

---