Statutory presumptions for signed cheques upheld; conviction restored where drawer failed to rebut liability

A signed cheque attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the fact that it was filled up by another person does not by itself negate liability. Where the complainant's evidence on the transaction, cheque, dishonour, notice, and reply notice is not effectively challenged, the accused must rebut the presumptions with cogent evidence. As no defence evidence or credible explanation was produced, the appellate court's reversal of the conviction under Section 138 was held unsustainable, and the conviction was restored with modified sentence and compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in reversing the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the transaction and execution of the cheque and agreement, and whether interference with the acquittal was warranted.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence, including the transaction, the agreement, the cheque, the dishonour memo, notice, and reply notice, was not subjected to effective cross-examination on the material aspects. The plea that the cheque was filled up by someone other than the drawer did not, by itself, negate liability. The legal position governing Sections 118, 139, 20 and 87 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is that a signed cheque, even if blank or written by another person, attracts presumptions in favour of the holder, and the burden rests on the accused to rebut those presumptions by cogent evidence. The accused did not adduce any defence evidence or establish a credible explanation to displace the statutory presumptions.

Conclusion: The appellate court's view was unsustainable, interference was warranted, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was restored with modified sentence and compensation.

---