Rebuttable statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases require proof of a legally enforceable debt and financial capacity.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must first establish the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt before the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate effectively. The High Court found no supporting account records or other material showing financial capacity to advance the alleged cash amount, and the complainant's own admission that he was not an income tax assessee weakened the claim further. The accused raised a probable defence on the materials, and the presumptions were treated as rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference, and whether the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The complaint was found unsupported by account records or other material showing that the complainant had the financial wherewithal to advance the alleged amount. The complainant also admitted that he was not an income tax assessee, and the complaint did not disclose any agreed rate of interest or other supporting circumstances normally attendant upon such a large cash transaction. The accused was able to raise a probable defence on the basis of the materials on record, and in proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is rebuttable and can be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld, as the complainant failed to establish the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused may rebut the statutory presumptions by showing a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the complainant must still prove the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt.

---