Statutory presumption for signed cheques defeats speculative forensic challenge to ink and contents without cogent rebuttal evidence.

A signed cheque attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act once execution is shown, and the drawer must rebut that presumption with cogent evidence. A cheque voluntarily signed and delivered does not lose its legal effect merely because it was blank or because the drawer disputes the age of the ink, signature, or contents. On that basis, the request for forensic examination was treated as unnecessary and frivolous, and the order permitting such examination was held unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the application seeking forensic examination of the cheque, including the age of ink used for the signature and contents, was sustainable in view of the statutory presumption attaching to a signed cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies once execution of the cheque is shown, and the drawer who signed and delivered the cheque must rebut that presumption by cogent evidence. Even a signed blank cheque, if voluntarily handed over, does not by itself invalidate the cheque or prevent the operation of Section 138. The dispute raised related only to the age of the ink and the signature and contents, and the application for forensic opinion was found to be unnecessary and frivolous. The High Court ought not to have permitted it.

Conclusion: The issue is answered against the respondent and in favour of the appellant; the order allowing the application and the revision was unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed cheque carries the statutory presumption of being issued towards a debt or liability, and a party cannot defeat that presumption merely by seeking forensic examination of ink or contents absent cogent rebuttal evidence.

---