Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases remained unrebutted where defence evidence failed to disprove liability.

Issuance and dishonour of the cheque were admitted, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities with cogent evidence showing absence of debt or liability, but the alleged oral agreement for sale of plots was unsupported by documents and the claimed tape-recorded conversation was unreliable because it was not properly preserved, sealed, transcribed, or satisfactorily proved. The record did not show that the cheque was issued otherwise than in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, so the presumption remained unrebutted and conviction under Section 138 was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the dishonoured cheque and thereby displaced the complainant's case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was admitted and dishonoured for want of funds. Once issuance of the cheque was shown, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by cogent evidence showing absence of debt or liability on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence based on an alleged oral agreement for sale of plots was unsupported by documentary evidence, and the alleged tape-recorded conversation was found unreliable because the recording was not properly preserved, sealed, or transcribed, and was not satisfactorily proved. The material on record did not sufficiently establish that the cheque was issued otherwise than in discharge of a legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted, the dishonour of the cheque attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the acquittal was unsustainable; conviction was warranted.

---