Statutory presumption under cheque law can be rebutted by probable defence; complainant must then prove debt independently.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was held rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities from the material on record and surrounding circumstances; the accused need not testify. The complainant's alleged loan arrangement was found doubtful because the source of funds was undocumented, the witnesses were inconsistent and improbable, oral evidence could challenge the written assertion, and the non-examination of the advocate connected with the transaction weakened the case. Once the defence showed a probable absence of debt, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to independently prove a legally enforceable liability. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability for the cheque amount.

Analysis: Section 139 raises a presumption that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a debt or liability, but the existence of a legally recoverable debt is not itself presumed. The accused is not required to enter the witness box and may rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities from the material already on record and surrounding circumstances. The evidence of the complainant and his witnesses created serious doubt about the alleged loan arrangement, since the claimed source of funds was unsupported by documents and the testimony of the witnesses was inconsistent and improbable. Oral evidence was also admissible to challenge the factual assertion recorded in the agreement, and the non-examination of the advocate who was centrally connected with the transaction further weakened the complainant's case. On the totality of the material, the defence that the debt did not exist was found to be probable, shifting the burden back to the complainant, who failed to establish the debt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the alleged debt and liability; the acquittal was therefore upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused may rebut the statutory presumption by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities from the evidence and circumstances on record, and once rebutted, the complainant must independently prove the existence of the debt or liability.

---