Rebuttable presumptions in cheque dishonour cases: probable defence on preponderance of probabilities sustained the acquittal.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and operate only until the accused raises a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Once execution of the cheque is shown, the complainant gains the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability, but the accused need not disprove it beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts, the complaint itself suggested that any transaction was with the complainant in his capacity as manager of the service station, not in his personal capacity, making the defence of no personal liability highly probable. The acquittal was therefore upheld because the trial court's finding was not perverse and no miscarriage of justice was shown.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in view of the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 and the accused's rebuttal of liability.

Analysis: The presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable. Once execution of the cheque is shown, the complainant gets the benefit of the statutory presumption, but the accused may rebut it by raising a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The Court reiterated that the presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, but that the accused is not required to prove the defence beyond reasonable doubt. On the facts, the complaint itself showed that the transaction, if any, was with the complainant as manager of the service station and not in his personal capacity, making the defence that liability was not owed to the complainant personally highly probable. The trial court's finding that the presumption stood rebutted was therefore not perverse, and appellate interference with an acquittal was unwarranted absent perversity or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not displace the respondent's probable defence, and no ground existed to disturb the acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and can be displaced by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities; an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is perverse or results in miscarriage of justice.

---