Cheque dishonour presumptions stand when signatures are admitted unless the accused rebuts them with a probable defence.

Admission of the drawer's signatures on cheques triggers the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the burden on the accused to rebut them with a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional jurisdiction is confined to checking correctness, legality and propriety, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice. On the stated facts, the accused led no supporting evidence, did not cross-examine the complainant, did not summon the alleged recipient of the cheques, and filed no misuse complaint, so bare assertions were insufficient to displace the presumptions and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner, in revision, had rebutted the presumptions arising from admission of his signatures on the cheques so as to unsettle the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The scope of revisional jurisdiction is limited to examining the correctness, legality and propriety of the impugned order, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless there is a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice. Once the drawer admitted his signatures on the cheques, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. The burden shifted to the accused to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused did not lead supporting evidence, did not cross-examine the complainant, did not summon the person to whom the cheques were allegedly handed over, and did not file any complaint about misuse of the cheques. Bald assertions were insufficient to displace the statutory presumptions.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of the drawer's signature on a cheque activates the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence established on a preponderance of probabilities.

---