Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by a probable defence on financial capacity and debt existence.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, dishonour of cheques and service of notice were established, but the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139 was rebutted. The complainant's evidence on the source of funds and financial capacity to advance the alleged loan created serious doubt, and the accused needed only to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. In an appeal against acquittal, the court reiterated that a plausible view taken by the trial court should not be disturbed merely because another view is possible. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be interfered with on the ground that the complainant had proved dishonour and service of notice, but the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption by raising a probable defence as to the complainant's financial capacity and the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the notice requirement under Section 138 stood satisfied. However, the decisive question was whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained unrebutted. The complainant's evidence on the source and financial capacity to advance the alleged loan was found to create serious doubt, and the accused was not required to disprove the case beyond reasonable doubt. In an appeal against acquittal, where the trial court has taken a possible and plausible view on the evidence, the appellate court should not disturb that finding merely because another view is also possible.

Conclusion: The accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and the acquittal was not liable to be interfered with.

---