Section 139 presumption rebutted where defence evidence and missing cheque records defeated proof of a legally enforceable debt.

The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities where the complainant's evidence was materially infirm, including the absence of account books for the alleged loan and an admission that cheques and promissory notes were taken as security in chit business. The accused supported the defence with documents showing a chit transaction, evidence of misuse of signed blank instruments, and a contemporaneous police complaint about missing cheque leaves. On that material, the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference, particularly on the question whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted and whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The complainant's case rested on an alleged cash loan and issuance of a cheque, but the evidence showed serious infirmities. The complainant's witness admitted that no books of account were maintained for the alleged lending, and also admitted that cheques and promissory notes were taken as security in the chit business. The accused produced documents showing his association with a chit transaction and led evidence that signed blank instruments had been misused. The contemporaneous police complaint regarding missing cheque leaves and the non-traceable certificate supported the defence version. The Court held that the accused need only rebut the statutory presumption on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and that standard was satisfied by the oral and documentary material on record.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted, the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal required no interference.

---