Cheque dishonour presumption remains rebuttable when the complainant fails to prove a legally recoverable debt.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant must prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt and that the liability was enforceable on the surrounding evidence. The court found the complainant's case deficient on material facts, including the source and financial capacity to advance the loan, lack of supporting documents, inconsistencies about the date and mode of payment, and contradiction between the oral version and the cheque date. The statutory presumption under negotiable instruments law remained rebuttable, and the accused could displace it through cross-examination without entering the witness box. On the overall evidence, the alleged debt was not proved with confidence, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the first appellate court erred in reversing the conviction and acquitting the accused in a cheque dishonour prosecution.

Analysis: The complainant was required to establish issuance of the cheque towards a legally recoverable debt and the surrounding circumstances showing enforceability of the liability. The evidence was found deficient on material aspects, including the source and capacity to advance the alleged loan, the absence of supporting documentary proof, inconsistencies regarding the date and manner of payment, and contradiction between the oral version and the cheque date. The statutory presumption under the negotiable instruments law remained rebuttable, and the accused was held entitled to displace it through cross-examination without necessarily entering the witness box. On the overall appraisal of evidence, the complainant failed to prove the alleged debt with confidence.

Conclusion: The reversal of conviction and the acquittal were upheld, and no interference was warranted.

---