Statutory presumption in cheque cases shifts the burden to the accused; acquittal was unsustainable on the stated facts.

Where issuance and dishonour of cheques are proved or admitted, the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities; on the stated facts, failure to discharge that burden made the acquittal unsustainable. The text also notes that the complaint was filed within the statutory period for cognizance, so limitation did not defeat the prosecution. The matter was remitted for a fresh decision on the evidence already on record.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable in view of the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheques and the limitation for filing the complaint.

Analysis: The complainant proved issuance and dishonour of the cheques, and the accused did not discharge the burden of rebutting the presumption attached to the admitted issuance of cheques. The finding of the trial court that the liability was not established was held to rest on a misplacement of the burden of proof. The complaint was also held to have been filed within the statutory period prescribed for taking cognizance.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was remitted to the trial court for a fresh decision on the evidence already on record.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance of a cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory presumption of liability operates and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities; failure to do so makes an acquittal on that ground unsustainable.

---