Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stand unless the drawer rebuts them with a probable defence.

Once the drawer admitted the cheque and signature, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut them by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, relying only on inconsistent suggestions in cross-examination and his Section 313 statement, without defence evidence or supporting material. The courts below erred in requiring the complainant to prove the debt independently before the presumption was displaced. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable, and the conviction under Section 138 was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by raising a probable defence, and whether the acquittal recorded by the courts below could be sustained.

Analysis: The execution of the cheque and the signature thereon were not in dispute, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 and the allied presumption under Section 118 stood attracted. The accused did not lead any defence evidence and relied only on suggestions in cross-examination and his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. His stand was found to be internally inconsistent, unsupported by any contemporaneous complaint or material, and insufficient to displace the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The courts below erred in treating the burden as resting on the complainant to prove the debt independently before the presumption was rebutted, instead of first examining whether the accused had discharged the evidential burden cast upon him.

Conclusion: The accused did not rebut the statutory presumption, and the acquittal could not be sustained. The issue is decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored, and the appeal succeeded.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the drawer admits the cheque signature, the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt operates, and it can be displaced only by a probable defence shown on a preponderance of probabilities; until then, the complainant is not required to prove the debt independently.

---