Rebuttable presumption in cheque dishonour cases requires proof of foundational facts; incomplete evidence led to remand for fresh disposal.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption under Section 139 remained rebuttable and the complainant still had to prove the foundational facts with reliable evidence. The record was found incomplete because the contract note was not properly proved, the statement of accounts lacked supporting proof from the original books or the respondent's signature, and the bank manager was not examined on dishonour and account status. Given the disputed cheque particulars and the nature of the derivative and share transactions, fuller evidence was required, so the concurrent appreciation of evidence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded by the first appellate court in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained on the existing record, and whether the matter required remand for fresh disposal.

Analysis: The cheque prosecution turned on whether the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt or only as security or for an uncertain future liability. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the complainant must still establish the foundational facts with reliable evidence. On the record before it, the Court found material gaps: the contract note was not proved through proper evidence, the statement of accounts was not supported by the respondent's signature or by the original books of account, and the bank manager was not examined to speak to dishonour and the account position. The Court also noted that the nature of the derivative/share transactions and the disputed cheque particulars required fuller evidence before a final finding could be returned.

Conclusion: The concurrent appreciation of evidence was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal after giving both sides opportunity to adduce further evidence.

---