Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act rebutted where loan proof and liability evidence were found deficient.

In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was held rebutted where the complaint lacked particulars of the alleged cash advance, supporting documents, witnesses, or proof of source and mode of payment. The Court also noted a material inconsistency between the asserted personal loan and the fact that the cheques were issued in favour of the complainants' firm. On the defence evidence relating to lease and connected transactions, the complainants failed to prove a legally recoverable liability, and special leave to appeal against the acquittal was refused, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave to appeal against the order of acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be granted where the accused was found to have rebutted the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The complaint did not contain particulars showing when the alleged loan was advanced, the source of the cash amount, the place or presence of witnesses, or any receipt, pronote, bank document, or firm account to support the alleged advance of Rs. 17,50,000/-. There was also a material inconsistency as to whether the loan was advanced in the personal capacity of the complainants or by their firm, while the cheques were issued in favour of the firm. The Court accepted that these deficiencies, along with the defence evidence regarding lease and related transactions, were sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the complainants failed to establish a legally recoverable liability.

Conclusion: The application for special leave to appeal was not granted and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---