Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed where cheque execution was admitted and no rebuttal was proved.

Once the cheque signature was admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions through reply, evidence, or effective proof of the alleged defences of loss of cheque book, security cheque, or absence of funds. The court found the complainant's evidence on the financial capacity issue acceptable and held the acquittal under Section 138 unsustainable, restoring the conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the respondent's acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was unsustainable because the cheque was signed by the accused, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose, and the accused failed to rebut the case of legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The cheque signature was admitted and both courts accepted that the cheque was executed by the accused. Once execution is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards discharge of a debt or other liability. The surrounding facts, including presentation of the cheque, dishonour, service of statutory notice, and the absence of any reply or rebuttal evidence from the accused, supported the complainant's version. The defence regarding loss of cheque book, security cheque, or absence of funds was neither put effectively to the complainant nor established by independent evidence. The explanation regarding the complainant's financial capacity was found acceptable on the evidence and did not displace the statutory presumptions.

Conclusion: The respondent failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the acquittal was not justified. The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence were restored in favour of the appellant.

---