Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stands unless the accused shows a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities.

Admission of the cheque triggers the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused can rebut it only by raising a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities. A bare denial or unsupported allegation is insufficient, and a stop-payment return does not by itself defeat Section 138 where the presumption remains unrebutted. On the facts discussed, the accused produced no evidence to support the coercion plea, so the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and whether the conviction under Section 138 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was admitted. Once issuance is admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arises that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. A bare denial, or an unsubstantiated counter-claim, is insufficient. The accused relied on a subsequent notice and an allegation that the cheque had been forcibly obtained, but the notice did not mention any coercion or denial of the cheque transaction, and no evidence was adduced to support the defence. The existence of earlier cheque dealings also weakened the defence. The stop-payment return did not assist the accused because such dishonour still attracts Section 138 where the statutory presumption is not rebutted.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139, and the conviction under Section 138 was rightly sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission of the cheque raises a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable debt, and the accused must displace it by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities.

---