Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: ss. 118 and 139 – Presumption as to negotiable instruments – Presumption in favour of holder – Held: Once the signature of an accused on the cheque/ negotiable instrument are established, then the ‘reverse onus’ clauses become operative – In such a situation, the obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him – Presumptions raised u/ss. 118, 139 are rebuttable in nature – A probable defence needs to be raised, which must meet the standard of “preponderance of probability”, and not mere possibility – On facts, trial court overlooked the provisions and failed to appreciate the statutory presumption drawn u/ss. 118 and 139, and dismissed the complaint u/s. 138 of the NI Act – Once the appellant-accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and the Deed, the trial court ought to have presumed that the cheque was issued as consideration for a legally enforceable debt – Trial court erred in calling upon the complainant to explain the circumstances under which the appellants were liable to pay – Since it is admitted that there has been business relationship between the parties, the defence raised by the appellants does not meet the standard of ‘preponderance of probability’ – Thus, the High Court right in discarding the appellants’ defence and upholding the onus imposed upon them in terms of ss. 118 and 139 – High Court justified in setting aside the findings of the trial court in exercise of its power u/s. 378 CrPC. Compensation: Claim of, in cases pertaining to dishonor of cheque – On facts, the respondent neither sought for compensation before the High Court nor did he challenged the High Court’s judgment – Held: Since the respondent has accepted the High Court’s verdict, his claim for compensation stands impliedly overturned.Sentence/sentencing: Reduction/modification of sentence – Commission of offence u/s. 138 of the NI Act – In appeal before the Supreme Court, appellants-accused deposited the cheque amount with the Registry of this Court – In view of dismissal of appeal, appellant No.2 liable to undergo the sentence of simple imprisonment as awarded by the High Court – However, since the appellant no 2 volunteered and thereafter deposited the cheque amount with the Registry of this Court, a lenient view is taken – Appellant No.2 not required to undergo the awarded sentence – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.