Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases stands unless the accused rebuts it with a probable defence.

Where execution of the cheque and the complainant's status as payee were admitted, the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused had to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, but a bare denial, an unsupported plea of a smaller loan, or a challenge to the complainant's financial capacity was insufficient. As the accused led no evidence and failed to substantiate the cheque being blank or limited to a smaller amount, the presumptions remained unrebutted and the acquittal under dishonour of cheque provisions was unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted on the accused's defence, and whether the acquittal under Section 138 of that Act was sustainable.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque and the complainant's status as payee were admitted, the statutory presumptions arose that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The rebuttal burden lay on the accused, who was required to raise a probable defence by evidence or by material showing that the debt did not exist or that its existence was improbable. Mere denial, unsupported plea of a smaller loan, or criticism of the complainant's financial capacity did not discharge that burden. The accused led no evidence and failed to substantiate the theory that the cheque was blank or issued only for Rs. 30,000/-.

Conclusion: The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 was not rebutted. The acquittal was unsustainable and the complaint under Section 138 was proved, resulting in conviction of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the conviction for dishonour of cheque was restored on the evidence and unrebutted statutory presumptions.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of the cheque is admitted, the accused must rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by showing a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities; a bare denial or unsubstantiated plea is insufficient to defeat a prosecution under Section 138.

---