Rebuttable statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law can be displaced by doubt over the complainant's financial capacity.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 arose once issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, and service of notice were proved. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including from material elicited in cross-examination of the complainant. Here, cross-examination created credible doubt about the complainant's financial capacity to advance the loan, and his asserted source of funds was unsupported by tangible evidence. Although the defence of security cheque and misuse was not independently proved, the doubt on capacity was sufficient to displace the presumption and the debt was not established with sufficient certainty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the complainant proved that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The complainant proved issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for want of sufficient funds, and service of notice, which attracted the presumption under Sections 118 and 139. The presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and the accused may rely on material elicited from the complainant. The cross-examination of the complainant created a reasonable doubt about his financial capacity to advance Rs.2,00,000/-, as his asserted source of funds was not supported by any tangible evidence. The defence of security cheque and misuse was not independently proved, but the doubt created regarding the complainant's capacity was sufficient to displace the initial presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to establish the debt with sufficient certainty; the acquittal was therefore upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption is rebuttable by showing a probable defence from the complainant's own evidence, and a credible doubt about the complainant's financial capacity can be sufficient to displace the presumption.

---