Statutory presumption for dishonoured blank cheques can be rebutted only by a probable defence; concurrent conviction was sustained.

A signed blank cheque voluntarily delivered to the payee may be completed by the payee, and the drawer remains liable unless the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities by a probable defence. Minor inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence and non-production of supporting tax documents did not by themselves displace the presumption, especially where no effective steps were taken to compel their production. Revisional interference with concurrent conviction findings is justified only on jurisdictional error or perversity; none was shown, so the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a prosecution based on dishonour of blank signed cheques, and whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour, issuance of notice, and non-payment were not in dispute. The accused admitted the business transaction and the filling up of dates and amounts in the cheques. The Court reiterated that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable, but the accused must displace it on a preponderance of probabilities by raising a probable defence. Minor inconsistencies in the complainant's testimony did not amount to material contradictions. Non-production of tax invoice and challan did not, by itself, defeat the statutory presumption, particularly when no effective steps were taken to compel their production. The filling up of a signed blank cheque at the payee's instance did not amount to material alteration in the absence of proof that the cheque was not voluntarily delivered or was not issued towards a liability. In revisional jurisdiction, interference with concurrent findings is warranted only on jurisdictional error or perversity, neither of which was shown.

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

Ratio Decidendi: A signed blank cheque voluntarily delivered to the payee may be filled up by the payee, and the drawer remains liable unless he rebuts the statutory presumption of liability on a preponderance of probabilities; revisional interference is not warranted with concurrent findings absent jurisdictional error or perversity.

---