Rebuttal of cheque presumptions defeated the claim of legally enforceable debt, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were treated as rebutted where the complainant could not support the alleged transaction with contemporaneous records, delivery details, transport documents, books of account, or tax returns, while the accused's explanation that the cheques were issued in advance for unfinished work was consistent with the surrounding circumstances and admissions. Once the presumptions were displaced on a preponderance of probabilities, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of the cheques. In the appeal against acquittal, no compelling ground was shown to interfere with the trial court's view.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with, in view of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 and the defence that the cheques were issued as advance payment without any subsisting debt or liability.

Analysis: The complainant's version of a scrap-sale transaction was found to be unsupported by contemporaneous documents, books of account, delivery records, transport details, or tax returns. The accused's explanation that the cheques were issued in advance for work that was not completed was supported by the surrounding circumstances and the complainant's own admissions. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were therefore treated as rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities. Once rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability on the date of the cheques. In an appeal against acquittal, no compelling ground was shown to displace the trial court's view.

Conclusion: The cheque was not shown to have been issued in discharge of an existing legally enforceable debt or liability, and the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

---