Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by circumstances and complainant evidence, defeating acquittal challenge.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Once execution of the cheque is shown, Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities without entering the witness box, including by relying on the complainant's own evidence and surrounding circumstances. Here, the cheque particulars were not shown to have been written by the accused, the source of the alleged liability was not satisfactorily proved, and there was no supporting documentary evidence of the transaction or authority to fill the cheque. The presumption was therefore rebutted and interference with the acquittal was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and the statutory presumption stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The complainant was required to establish that the cheque was drawn towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once execution of the cheque is shown, a rebuttable presumption arises in favour of the holder, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused was not required to enter the witness box and could rely on the complainant's own materials and surrounding circumstances. On the evidence, the cheque particulars were not shown to have been written by the accused, the complainant did not satisfactorily explain the source or basis of the alleged liability of Rs. 32 lakhs, and there was no supporting documentary proof of the transaction or authorization to fill up the cheque. These circumstances were sufficient to raise a probable defence and to displace the presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability; the acquittal was therefore not shown to be illegal, improper, or contrary to law.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interference is unwarranted where the accused rebuts the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities and the complainant fails to prove the legally enforceable debt or liability.

---