Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases were upheld where execution was admitted and no probable defence was proved.

Execution of the cheque and signature being admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused failed to prove full repayment or that the cheque was merely a security cheque, and the alleged deposits were not linked to the transaction in question. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds and service of the demand notice at the correct address were treated as established on the statutory presumptions. The High Court, exercising narrow revisional jurisdiction, found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 138.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable where issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted, the accused claimed part-payments and a security cheque, and the matter was challenged in revision.

Analysis: The accused admitted taking the loan, issuing the cheque and signing it, but led no evidence to prove full repayment or to establish that the cheque was only a security cheque. The Court held that once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Section 139 and Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the holder, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut them by a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The alleged deposits were not shown to relate to the transaction in question, and the dishonour memo showed insufficiency of funds. The notice of demand was sent to the correct address and was treated as duly served by the statutory presumption. The revisional court's scope remained narrow and no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error was shown in the concurrent findings below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision.

---