Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases are rebuttable when the complainant's evidence makes the debt itself doubtful.

The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be rebutted by the accused through cross-examination or evidence, and the complainant's own admissions can weaken the presumption where they create serious doubt about a legally recoverable debt. Here, material inconsistencies in the complainant's case on the source of funds, the alleged loan transaction, and the circumstances of cheque issuance made the defence version probable. The HC found that the trial and appellate courts had over-relied on the presumption without properly assessing those admissions. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore unsustainable, and interference in revision was justified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted by the accused and whether interference was warranted in revision against the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The accused is entitled to rebut the presumption by cross-examination or by leading evidence. The evidence of the complainant contained material inconsistencies regarding the source of funds, the alleged advancement of Rs. 4.6 lakhs, and the circumstances in which the cheque was issued. The complainant's admissions suggested that the transaction was not proved in the manner asserted and that the defence version of a smaller loan amount, supported by the surrounding circumstances and admissions, was probable. In revision, the Court found that both the trial court and the appellate court had failed to evaluate these admissions properly and had placed excessive reliance on the statutory presumption without considering the probability of the defence.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted, the conviction was unsustainable, and interference in revision was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour conviction cannot stand where the accused probabilises the defence and the complainant's own evidence creates serious doubt about the existence of a legally recoverable debt.

---