Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted, so the conviction was upheld.

The Madras HC held that, in a prosecution for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant having proved issuance, presentation and dishonour of the cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in the complainant's favour. The accused admitted the signature and issuance, but failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The alleged prior repayment and misuse of a blank signed cheque were not supported by reliable evidence, as the receipt did not mention cheque particulars and the claimed witness was not examined. The conviction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be set aside on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption by showing prior repayment and misuse of a blank signed cheque.

Analysis: The complainant proved issuance of the cheque, its presentation and dishonour for insufficiency of funds. The accused admitted the signature and issuance of the cheque, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant. That presumption is rebuttable, but the accused was required to establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence version of an earlier loan, repayment, and retention of blank documents was not proved by reliable evidence. The receipt relied on by the accused did not contain the cheque particulars, the alleged witness to its execution was not examined, and the surrounding facts did not make the defence credible. The authorities cited on reverse onus and probable defence did not assist the accused on these facts.

Conclusion: The defence failed to rebut the presumption arising under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

---