Cheque dishonour after account closure remains punishable, and the liability presumption stands unless a probable defence is credibly shown.

A cheque issued after closure of the drawer's account remains within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act if it was drawn on an account previously maintained by the drawer, because a purposive reading protects the credibility of cheque transactions. The statutory presumption under Section 139 arises once signature and prior financial dealings are admitted, and it can be rebutted only by credible evidence showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Bare denials, unsupported security-cheque claims, and unconvincing post-notice conduct are insufficient. On these principles, the acquittal could not stand and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a cheque issued after the closure of the drawer's account falls within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption regarding the cheque being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Issue (i): Whether a cheque issued after the closure of the drawer's account falls within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The expression "an account maintained by him" was construed in a purposive manner to advance the legislative object of maintaining the credibility of cheque-based transactions. A cheque drawn on an account earlier maintained by the drawer does not escape the penal provision merely because the account was closed before the date of the cheque. The dishonour of such a cheque is within the sweep of Section 138, especially where the drawer retained unused cheque leaves after closure of the account.

Conclusion: The cheque remained covered by Section 138 notwithstanding prior closure of the account, and the acquittal on that ground could not stand.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption regarding the cheque being issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The accused admitted the signature on the cheque and admitted earlier financial dealings with the complainant, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 139. The defence that the cheque had been issued as security to another person was unsupported by tangible evidence, as the alleged recipient was not examined and no convincing post-notice conduct supported the defence version. The standard required to rebut the presumption is preponderance of probabilities, but bare suggestions and fanciful doubts are insufficient.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139.

Final Conclusion: The order of acquittal was set aside, the conviction was restored, and the accused was sentenced with compensation directed to be paid to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque drawn on an account previously maintained by the drawer remains within Section 138 even if the account was closed before the cheque date, and the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 can be displaced only by credible evidence establishing a probable defence.

---