Cheque signature admission triggers statutory presumptions, and an unproved repayment defence will not rebut liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Once the drawer admits the cheque and signature, the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable debt under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are displaced only by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities. On the facts discussed, the accused's plea that the cheques were security cheques, that liability had been discharged, and that the complainant was an unregistered moneylender was not proved; the evidence did not establish repayment, and the dishonour and notice requirements stood satisfied. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to displace the finding of guilt under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The accused admitted his signatures and the issuance of at least one cheque, while setting up a defence that the cheques were security cheques and that the liability had already been discharged. In such a situation, the statutory presumptions of consideration and of a legally enforceable debt arose in favour of the complainant. The defence evidence did not establish that the amount shown in the bank entry was paid to the complainant, since the witness could not identify the recipient and the suggestion of repayment was denied. The plea that the complainant was an unregistered moneylender was not proved, and the alleged non-production of the agreement or income-tax material did not, by itself, rebut the presumptions. The dishonour memos showed insufficiency of funds, service of notice stood admitted, and the accused failed to prove repayment.

Conclusion: The presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted, and the conviction under Section 138 was sustained.

Final Conclusion: No ground was made out to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, and the challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the drawer admits the cheque and signature, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the holder, and they can be displaced only by a proved probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

---