Rebuttable presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act was displaced on the complainant's own evidence, sustaining acquittal.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption of liability under Sections 118(a) and 139 is rebuttable, and the accused need only raise a probable defence or rely on material from the complainant's own evidence to displace it; proof beyond reasonable doubt is not required. On the facts, the complainant failed to establish supply and receipt of the disputed air tickets, the invoices were not convincingly proved, the alleged recipients were not examined, and the surrounding documents created doubts as to genuineness and liability. The presumption was therefore rebutted, the underlying debt was not proved, and the acquittal was upheld while leave to appeal was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted on the complainant's evidence so as to sustain the acquittal and justify grant of leave to appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable, and the accused is not required to disprove the complainant's case beyond reasonable doubt; a probable defence, or material elicited from the complainant's evidence and cross-examination, is sufficient. Applying that standard, the Court found that the complainant failed to establish supply and receipt of all three air tickets, the disputed invoices were not convincingly proved, the alleged recipients were not examined, and the surrounding documents created doubts about genuineness and liability. On that material, the statutory presumption stood displaced and the complainant failed to prove the underlying debt or liability.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and leave to appeal was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption of liability can be rebutted by a probable defence or by discrediting the complainant's case from the complainant's own evidence, and the accused need not prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt.

---