Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act apply once cheque execution is proved; acquittal set aside and conviction restored.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court held that once the complainant established execution of the cheque through admitted signature and issuance, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose and the burden shifted to the accused to rebut them. The complainant's testimony, surrounding circumstances, and bank statement supporting availability of funds were sufficient to prove the transaction, while the accused failed to displace the presumption. The complainant's inability to identify who filled up the cheque or to produce title documents for the property allegedly sold did not negate liability. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the first appellate court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with, and whether the complainant had proved the transaction and issuance of the cheque so as to attract the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The complainant's version that the accused borrowed the cheque amount was supported by his testimony, the surrounding circumstances, and the bank statement showing availability of funds. Although the complainant could not produce title documents or clearly identify the purchaser of the property said to have been sold to raise funds, the defence witness summoned by the accused supported the fact of such property sale. The mere inability of the complainant to state who filled up the cheque or to identify the handwriting on the cheque did not displace the presumption arising from an admitted signature and issuance of the cheque. Once execution of the cheque was established, the burden remained on the accused to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was not done.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held unsustainable and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored.

---