Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted where cheque signature was admitted and repayment was unproved.

Admission of the cheque, signature and borrowing attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused had to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, but the plea of prior repayment was unsupported by reliable evidence, and the alleged security cheque character did not defeat Section 138 where an existing liability was shown. The revisional court found no patent illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings, so the conviction and sentence were maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable when the drawer admitted the cheque and signature but claimed repayment and security issuance, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted.

Analysis: The accused admitted borrowing the amount, issuing the cheque, and her signature on the cheque. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arose that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut that presumption by a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence of prior repayment was not substantiated by reliable evidence. The supporting witness was found unconvincing, no document was produced for the alleged repayment of a substantial amount, and the receipt entries relied upon by the accused did not displace the complainant's case. The contention that the cheque was a security cheque did not assist the accused because a security cheque, if issued in relation to an existing liability, can also attract Section 138. The revisional jurisdiction was limited and no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings was shown.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, the ingredients of Section 138 were proved, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision was devoid of merit and the concurrent findings of guilt and sentence were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: When execution and signature on a cheque are admitted, the law presumes a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused must rebut that presumption by a probable defence proved on the standard of preponderance of probabilities; a security cheque issued against an existing liability is not outside Section 138.

---