Rebuttable cheque presumptions under NI Act protected acquittal where the accused raised a probable defence against alleged debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the Court held that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remain rebuttable and may be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully raised a probable defence by pointing to the cheque counterfoil, prior use of the cheque, and the absence of independent proof of the complainant's financial capacity or the alleged loan transaction. The complainant's failure to produce supporting documents, together with his admissions, weakened the claim of a legally enforceable debt. In an appeal against acquittal, the double presumption of innocence also required restraint, and the trial court's view was not shown to be unreasonable. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of acquittal in the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference on the ground that the complainant had proved issuance of the cheque and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 operated in his favour.

Analysis: The cheque bounce case turned on whether the complainant established the existence of a legally enforceable debt and whether the accused rebutted the presumption arising from the admitted signature on the cheque. The Court accepted that the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 is rebuttable and can be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. On the facts, the accused produced material creating doubt about the alleged loan transaction, including the cheque counterfoil, the pleaded earlier use of the cheque, and the absence of independent proof that the complainant had the financial capacity to advance Rs. 2 lakhs. The complainant also failed to produce supporting documents for the alleged loan or relationship, and his own admissions weakened the prosecution case. In an appeal against acquittal, the double presumption of innocence further required restraint unless the trial court's view was unreasonable.

Conclusion: The accused had raised a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption, and the acquittal was not liable to be interfered with. The appeal was therefore without merit.

---