Cheque dishonour presumptions are rebuttable on probabilities, and appellate courts must impose sentence after reversing acquittal.

In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, shifting the evidential burden to the accused. The accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities through direct or circumstantial evidence, including material from the complainant's own case; here, the available evidence showed no sale transaction and the complainant produced no supporting books or records, so the presumptions were rebutted and no legally enforceable debt was proved. The text also states that, after reversing an acquittal, the appellate court must impose sentence itself and cannot remit sentencing to the trial court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved; (ii) what is required of the accused to rebut those presumptions and whether the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability; (iii) whether the High Court, after reversing an acquittal and convicting the accused, could remit the matter to the trial court for imposition of sentence.

Issue (i): Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved.

Analysis: Section 118 creates presumptions regarding consideration and other matters, while Section 139 requires the court to presume that the cheque was received for discharge of a debt or liability unless the contrary is proved. These presumptions are rebuttable and operate once execution of the instrument is admitted or established. They shift the evidential burden to the accused.

Conclusion: The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose on proof of execution of the cheques.

Issue (ii): What is required of the accused to rebut those presumptions and whether the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The accused is not required to disprove the presumptions beyond reasonable doubt; rebuttal may be shown by direct evidence, circumstantial evidence, presumptions of fact, or even from the complainant's own case, provided the non-existence of consideration or debt becomes probable on a preponderance of probabilities. On the record, the sales tax witness and the respondent's own affidavit showed that no sale of woollen carpets had taken place in the relevant assessment year. The complainant produced no books of account, stock register, or acknowledgement of delivery to prove the alleged sale or liability.

Conclusion: The accused rebutted the statutory presumptions and the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Issue (iii): Whether the High Court, after reversing an acquittal and convicting the accused, could remit the matter to the trial court for imposition of sentence.

Analysis: In an appeal from acquittal, the appellate court's powers under Section 386(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 include reversal and conviction, but do not contemplate remitting the matter to the trial court for sentencing after recording guilt. The duty to impose sentence rests with the appellate court itself if it reverses the acquittal.

Conclusion: The procedure adopted by the High Court in remitting sentencing to the trial court was impermissible in law.

Final Conclusion: The reversal of acquittal was unjustified, and the appellant was entitled to restoration of the trial court's verdict of acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 are rebuttable and may be displaced by proving, on a preponderance of probabilities, that no legally enforceable debt or liability existed; once rebutted, the complainant must independently prove the transaction and liability.

---