Cheque dishonour presumption can be rebutted by a probable defence where the debt itself remains unproved.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant must first establish foundational facts showing a legally enforceable debt or liability before the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including through material already on record, and a probable defence can shift the burden back to the complainant. The Court noted serious doubts over the alleged loan transaction, the complainant's financial capacity, the supporting witness's credibility, the unexplained absence of accounts and income tax returns, and the possibility that blank signed cheques were misused. It also treated the alleged cash advance as inconsistent with section 269-SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld the acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the acquittal recorded by the lower appellate court in the cheque dishonour complaints called for interference.

Analysis: In a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must establish the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt or liability, after which the presumption under section 139 arises that the cheque was issued in discharge of such debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable and can be displaced by a probable defence shown on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the material brought on record by the complainant. The evidence accepted by the Court showed serious doubts about the alleged loan transaction, including the partnership background between the parties, the manner in which the receipts were produced, the absence of reliable proof of the complainant's financial capacity, the unexplained non-production of accounts and income tax returns, the doubtful credibility of the supporting witness, and circumstances suggesting that blank signed cheques may have been misused. The Court also accepted that cash advancement of such a large amount attracted the statutory prohibition in section 269-SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, reinforcing the conclusion that the alleged legally enforceable debt was not satisfactorily proved.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the complainant failed to prove the debt or liability; the acquittal was and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the accused raises a probable defence and creates doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the liability, and failure to do so entitles the accused to acquittal.

---