Rebuttable cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act fails where debt particulars are vague and unsupported by evidence.

Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability, but once the accused rebuts that presumption the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt. Here, the accused's contemporaneous denial and the complaint's vague allegations, lacking particulars of the alleged debt, dates, interest, and basis of the amount claimed, were found insufficient to establish the transaction. The complainant's shifting testimony did not supply the missing foundational facts. The result stated in the text is that the presumption was treated as rebutted and the ingredients of Section 138 were not proved, making conviction and sentence unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the statutory presumption under Section 139 was said to have been rebutted by the accused and the complaint and evidence lacked particulars of the alleged debt or liability.

Analysis: Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or other liability. Once that presumption is rebutted, the burden shifts to the complainant to establish that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. On the evidence, the accused had sent a contemporaneous reply disputing the transaction and the complaint itself contained only a vague assertion that the cheque was issued in discharge of repayment liabilities of amounts taken, without particulars of the amounts, dates, rate of interest, or the basis for the figure claimed. The complainant's testimony also contained shifting versions that did not cure the absence of foundational details.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138. The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal.

---