Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, sustaining conviction despite defence claims of misuse and lack of funds.

Admission of the cheque signatures triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused had to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but the plea of no financial capacity, non-disclosure in income tax returns, alleged misuse of cheques, and closure of the account was found unsubstantiated. The complainant's explanation for arranging funds was accepted, the defence evidence did not create a credible doubt, and the failure to give a meaningful reply to the statutory notice further weakened the defence. The conviction under Section 138 was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to invalidate the conviction under Section 138.

Analysis: The signature on the cheques having been admitted, the presumption under Sections 139 and 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the holder of the cheques. That presumption extended to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and could be displaced only by a probable defence shown on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The accused's challenge based on alleged absence of financial capacity, non-disclosure in income tax returns, alleged misuse of cheques, and the plea that the account had been closed was found unsubstantiated. The complainant's version of arranging funds was accepted, and the defence evidence was held insufficient to create a credible doubt. The failure to respond meaningfully to the statutory notice also weakened the defence.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the conviction under Section 138 was sustained.

---