Rebuttable statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act fail where the complainant cannot prove a legally enforceable debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable, and the accused may defeat them by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Material inconsistencies in the complainant's evidence about the alleged transport, carriage charges, and the authority of the person receiving payment undermined the claim of a legally enforceable debt. Once the defence became probable, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove the underlying liability with reliable evidence. The acquittal was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was justified on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions and the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and the accused is only required to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The Court found material contradictions in the complainant's own evidence regarding the number of cartons, the extent of carriage, and the carriage charges, apart from uncertainty about the role and authority of the person who signed the receipt. These inconsistencies weakened the foundation of the claimed liability and were sufficient to probabilise the defence that the cheque was not issued towards a proved debt or liability. Once such probability emerged, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to establish the liability as a matter of fact.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: A conviction under Section 138 cannot stand where the accused rebuts the statutory presumptions by a probable defence and the complainant does not prove the underlying liability with reliable evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable by a probable defence proved on a preponderance of probabilities, and once such rebuttal is made, the complainant must establish the legally enforceable debt or liability.

---