Rebuttable presumptions in cheque dishonour cases upheld where complainant's evidence failed to prove a legally enforceable debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose once cheque execution and dishonour for insufficiency of funds were established, but they remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully created doubt through the complainant's own inconsistent evidence on the alleged cash advances, source of funds, and non-examination of alleged witnesses. As the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt after that rebuttal, the trial court's acquittal was not disturbed on appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference on the ground that the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the accused had failed to rebut the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheques stood established by their dishonour for insufficiency of funds, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. Those presumptions were rebuttable, and the accused was only required to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's own evidence, however, was found to be inconsistent and improbable on the material particulars of the alleged cash advances, the source of funds, and the non-examination of witnesses who were said to have been present. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was not justified where the evidence supported the trial court's view and the complainant failed to prove consideration as a matter of fact after the defence had created doubt about the alleged liability.

Conclusion: The acquittal was sustained and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: A prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can fail where the complainant's own evidence renders the alleged debt improbable and the accused rebuts the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities; an appellate court will not disturb an acquittal in such circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable by a probable defence established from the complainant's own evidence, and an acquittal in a Section 138 case will not be reversed on appeal unless the complainant proves the legally enforceable liability despite such rebuttal.

---