Presumption of signature and consideration upheld, failure to rebut statutory presumptions led to conviction being restored.

Proof of the drawer's signature on a cheque and valid service of the statutory demand notice gives rise to the rebuttable presumptions that the cheque was issued for consideration and that the holder is the payee; where the accused failed to produce cogent independent evidence to rebut those presumptions, the trial court's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held to be warranted and the appellate acquittal was set aside. The appellate inference based on immediate presentation was unsupported by pleadings or evidence and did not negate the complainant's case that the cheque discharged an earlier advance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the lower appellate court was justified in acquitting the accused of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; and whether the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose and were rebutted.

Analysis: Evidence on record establishes that cheque Ex.P/1 bears the accused's signature. Service of the statutory demand notice is proved by the acknowledgement (Ex.P/6) and the UPC receipt. The accused did not lead any independent evidence or witnesses to demonstrate lack of financial capacity of the complainant or to rebut the statutory presumptions. The lower appellate court's inference that the cheque being presented on the same day as issuance negated the presumption of debt lacks support in the pleadings and in the evidence, and does not contradict the complainant's case that the cheque was issued in discharge of an earlier advance. The accused's assertions in 313 Cr.P.C. statement about misplacement of the cheque book were not substantiated by documentary or witness evidence nor by cross-examination that undermines the complainant's proof.

Conclusion: The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise on proof of the accused's signature and the holder's possession; the accused failed to rebut those presumptions. The acquittal by the lower appellate court is set aside and the trial court's conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are restored in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of the drawer's signature on the cheque and valid service of the statutory notice gives rise to rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; failure by the drawer to produce cogent independent evidence to rebut those presumptions warrants conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---