Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases stand unless the accused proves a probable defence with evidence.

Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the instrument was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused's defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, that the complainant lacked financial capacity, and that repayment had been made was not supported by cogent evidence; the complainant's version also remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. The court therefore treated the statutory presumption as unrebutted, noted that differing ink in the cheque particulars did not by itself displace liability, and concluded that the acquittal could not stand, resulting in guilt under Section 138.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in the cheque dishonour prosecution was liable to be set aside, in particular whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were rebutted by the accused.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were admitted, attracting the statutory presumptions that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a debt or liability. The accused's plea that the cheque was a security cheque and that the complainant lacked financial capacity was not supported by cogent evidence. The defence version regarding repayment was not proved, and the fact that the cheque particulars were filled in a different ink did not displace the presumption, since a signed cheque handed over voluntarily remains effective unless the drawer rebuts the presumption by evidence. The complainant's evidence remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination.

Conclusion: The presumption of legally enforceable liability was not rebutted. The acquittal was unsustainable and the accused was held guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque and signature are admitted, the law raises a rebuttable presumption of liability, and the accused must displace it by a probable defence supported by evidence; mere denial, security-cheque pleas, or reliance on the complainant's alleged lack of funds is insufficient without proof.

---