Cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise on admitted signature, and weak rebuttal fails to displace liability.

When the signature on a cheque is admitted or proved, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the complainant, even if the cheque was filled by another person. A signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over does not by itself negate liability. The accused must rebut the presumption with credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities; interested oral testimony and unconnected documents were found insufficient. The complainant's income-tax status and the alleged cash nature of the transaction were treated as irrelevant to liability under Section 138.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant had proved execution and issuance of the cheque so as to attract the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the accused had rebutted those presumptions to justify acquittal.

Analysis: Once the signature on the cheque was admitted and the complainant proved possession and issuance of the cheque, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The fact that the cheque entries were filled by someone other than the drawer was held to be legally immaterial. A signed blank cheque, voluntarily handed over, does not by itself negate liability. The accused's version that the cheque was only a security cheque in a chitty transaction was supported only by interested oral evidence and unconnected documents, which were found insufficient to rebut the presumption. The reasoning that the complainant was an income-tax assessee or that the loan was paid in cash did not discredit the prosecution case, as those considerations were held irrelevant to the liability under Section 138.

Conclusion: The complainant had proved the foundational facts for the statutory presumption, and the accused failed to displace that presumption. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: When the execution and signature of a cheque are proved or admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise even if the cheque was filled up by another person, and the accused must rebut them by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities.

---