Rebuttal of statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained the acquittal where no legally enforceable debt was proved.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Supreme Court held that the accused can rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 on a preponderance of probabilities by showing that no legally enforceable debt or liability existed. The defence materials, including documents and cross-examination admissions, were sufficient to make the accused's version probable, while the complainant failed to prove a legally recoverable debt. The High Court had reversed the acquittal without properly appreciating the defence evidence. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the trial court's acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to displace the complainant's case and sustain the acquittal recorded by the trial court.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and the standard for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities. The material relied upon by the accused, including the documentary evidence and admissions elicited in cross-examination, supported the defence that the cheque was not issued towards any legally enforceable liability. The trial court had examined the documents and oral evidence in detail and found that no amount was legally due, whereas the High Court reversed the acquittal without properly appreciating the defence materials and without adequate reasoning. On the record, the defence version was found to be sufficiently probable and the complainant failed to establish a legally recoverable debt.

Conclusion: The accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was unsustainable, and the trial court's acquittal was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused may rebut the statutory presumptions by showing, on a preponderance of probabilities, that no legally enforceable debt or liability existed; once such rebuttal is established, conviction cannot be sustained.

---