Rebuttable statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases: probable defence was enough, and acquittal was restored.

Statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and an accused need only raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probability, including from the complainant's own material. On the facts, the defence evidence and surrounding circumstances made the alleged liability doubtful, and the trial court had given cogent reasons for holding the presumption rebutted. The High Court reversed that finding without adequately addressing those reasons. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted where two reasonable views are possible. The conviction was therefore held unsustainable and the acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the accused had set up a probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable. The accused is not required to disprove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt; it is enough to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probability, and such probability may arise from the defence evidence as well as the material brought by the complainant. On the facts found by the trial court, the defence version was supported by evidence, the surrounding circumstances made the alleged liability doubtful, and the trial court had given cogent reasons for holding that the presumption stood rebutted. The High Court reversed that finding without adequately meeting the trial court's reasoning. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is not warranted when the defence version is probable and two views are reasonably possible.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable. The acquittal was restored and the accused succeeded.

---