Cheque dishonour presumptions applied where execution, consideration and enforceable debt were proved despite signature mismatch and blank-cheque defence.

Cheque dishonour liability arose because the evidence established the complainant's financial capacity, underlying loan transactions, execution of the cheque, and its dishonour. A return memo stating that the drawer's signature differed does not preclude liability where the account also lacked sufficient funds and statutory requirements are satisfied. The further advance to a relative despite an unpaid earlier loan, and the cheque being typewritten, did not make the transaction improbable or invalidate execution. The accused's inconsistent claim of an earlier loan and blank cheque failed to rebut the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability; the acquittal was therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the loan transactions and execution of the dishonoured cheque so as to attract liability for cheque dishonour.

Analysis: The evidence established the complainant's financial capacity, the transactions, execution of the cheque and dishonour. A cheque returned with the endorsement "Drawer's signature differs" attracts liability where the drawer's account also lacked sufficient funds and the statutory requirements are met. The fact that a further loan was advanced to a relative while an earlier loan remained unpaid did not make the transaction inherently improbable, particularly given the short interval between them. Nor did the typewritten nature of the cheque invalidate or discredit its execution. The accused's inconsistent case concerning an earlier loan and blank cheque did not rebut the evidence establishing the cheque liability; the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability were therefore available to the complainant.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable; the accused was liable for the offence of cheque dishonour.

---