Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases upheld where signature was admitted and no probable defence rebutted it.

Where execution of a cheque is admitted or not credibly disputed, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the drawer did not dispute the signature, did not plead a lost or forged cheque, and led no evidence or documents to raise a probable defence. Objections about the complainant's source of funds, missing documents, and difference in ink were held insufficient to displace the statutory presumption. The acquittal under Section 138 was therefore unsustainable, and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the drawer did not dispute the signature on the cheque and no probable defence was established to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139.

Analysis: Section 138 creates criminal liability for dishonour of cheque issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, while Section 139 mandates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque. The standard for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities, and the accused may rely on cross-examination or defence evidence to raise a probable defence. Here, the signature on the cheque was not challenged, no plea of lost or forged cheque was raised, and the defence led no evidence or documents to displace the presumption. The objections regarding source of funds, absence of documents, and difference in ink were found insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of acquittal was set aside, reviving the trial court's conviction and sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is admitted or not credibly disputed, the presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder, and acquittal cannot rest on mere doubts or absence of complainant documents unless the accused raises a probable defence to rebut that presumption.

---