Statutory presumption in cheque cases: admitted signature shifts the burden, and a security cheque may still attract liability.

Admission of issuance and signature on a cheque triggers presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the drawer to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The commentary notes that a mere plea of security cheque, or a bare denial under Section 313 CrPC, is insufficient without reliable supporting evidence. It also states that dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within time satisfy the ingredients of Section 138, and that a security cheque may still attract liability if debt exists on presentation. Revisional interference is limited to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, including the plea that it was a security cheque and that only a lesser amount was advanced. (ii) Whether the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were established and the conviction and sentence required interference in revision.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, including the plea that it was a security cheque and that only a lesser amount was advanced.

Analysis: Once the issuance of the cheque and the signature of the drawer were admitted, presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused was required to raise a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The agreement between the parties supported the complainant's version of advancement of the full amount, while the defence version regarding a lesser loan amount and the alleged security cheque was found inconsistent and unsupported by reliable evidence. Mere denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not sufficient to rebut the presumption.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the plea that the cheque was only a security cheque was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were established and the conviction and sentence required interference in revision.

Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice was served, and the accused did not make payment within the prescribed time. A cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 where liability exists on the date of presentation. The revisional court could interfere only for patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, none of which was shown. The sentence of six months' simple imprisonment and compensation was not found to be excessive in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The ingredients of Section 138 stood proved and no revisional interference was warranted with the conviction or sentence.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and the revision petition was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of signature and issuance of a cheque triggers the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and a security cheque also attracts Section 138 if liability exists when the cheque is presented, unless the drawer rebuts the presumption by a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities.

---