Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases remains intact when the accused fails to raise a probable defence.

In a cheque dishonour matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court found that the respondent proved advancement of the amount, issuance of the cheque, and its dishonour. The applicant failed to produce reliable material to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139, and a bare assertion that the respondent lacked financial capacity was insufficient. The Court reiterated that the accused must displace the presumption on a preponderance of probability, which was not done. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, and the revision was rejected, leaving the conviction and sentence undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the applicant rebutted the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act and showed that the findings of guilt under Section 138 were unsustainable.

Analysis: The respondent's evidence was found sufficient to establish advancement of the amount and the issuance and dishonour of the cheque. The applicant did not place any reliable material on record to displace the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The plea that the respondent lacked financial capacity was treated as a bare assertion and the statutory requirements under Section 138 were held to have been complied with. The burden on the accused is one of rebuttal on a preponderance of probability, and that burden was not discharged.

Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed and the finding of liability under Section 138 was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour conviction stands where the statutory presumption is not rebutted by credible evidence and the accused fails to show a probable defence displacing liability.

---