Cheque presumptions and deemed service of notice under the Negotiable Instruments Act require credible rebuttal and proof.

Where execution and signature on a cheque are admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of consideration and legally enforceable liability, and the accused can rebut them only by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities. A defence that goods were defective and returned failed because the supporting witnesses and documents did not reliably prove the alleged transaction, defect, or return. A statutory notice properly addressed and dispatched by registered post is deemed served, and service of summons may cure any alleged defect in notice service.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioners rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and established that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability; (ii) whether non-service of the statutory legal notice vitiated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): whether the petitioners rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and established that the cheque was not issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: Once execution and signature on the cheque were admitted, the statutory presumptions as to consideration and discharge of debt or liability arose. The defence that defective goods were returned was examined on the evidence led by the petitioners, including the delivery challan and the testimony of the alleged witnesses. The evidence did not support the defence: one witness denied knowledge of the transaction or return of goods, the other did not prove employment or preparation of the challan, and there was no reliable documentary proof that the goods were defective or that a valid return was made. The circumstances, including the timing and contents of the challan, also did not corroborate the defence.

Conclusion: The petitioners failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the cheque was treated as issued towards a legally enforceable liability.

Issue (ii): whether non-service of the statutory legal notice vitiated the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The notice was sent to the address used by the petitioners, dispatch was proved by postal receipt and tracking material, and the address itself was not disputed. A notice properly addressed and sent by registered post is deemed served, and service of summons also cures any alleged defect in notice service.

Conclusion: The plea of non-service of legal notice was rejected and service of notice was treated as duly proved.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court found no infirmity in the concurrent conviction and sentence, and no ground for interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate, and they can be displaced only by credible rebuttal showing non-existence of debt or liability on a preponderance of probabilities; duly addressed and dispatched statutory notice is deemed served.

---