Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases stands unless credible evidence proves repayment and rebuts the defence burden.

A rebuttable presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be displaced only by credible, reliable evidence. In a cheque dishonour dispute, an alleged receipt said to show repayment was rejected because it was not disclosed at the notice stage, was not confronted to the complainant in cross-examination, and was not put in the accused's Section 313 statement. The court also treated uncorroborated handwriting opinions as unsafe to rely on in isolation. On that basis, the defence document was held not proved as genuine and insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court was justified in accepting the genuineness of the alleged receipt said to prove repayment and in reversing the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, but the accused must place reliable material to displace it. The alleged receipt was not disclosed at the notice stage, was not put to the complainant in cross-examination, and was not specifically taken in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. No supporting witness from the income tax record was examined to explain its production at the defence stage. The conflicting handwriting opinions did not, by themselves, make the document reliable, and expert evidence of handwriting was treated as unsafe to rely on in isolation for proving execution of the receipt.

Conclusion: The receipt was not proved as a genuine document, the appellate court erred in relying on it, and the revision succeeded with restoration of the conviction and modified compensation.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the appellate judgment was accepted, the earlier conviction was restored, and the complainant was held entitled to enhanced compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: A rebuttable presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be displaced only by credible evidence, and unproved handwriting opinion or an uncorroborated defence document, not disclosed at the appropriate stage, is insufficient to rebut that presumption.

---