Cheques and statutory presumptions: a bare Section 313 statement cannot by itself rebut liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

In cheque dishonour proceedings, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, but the accused must raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Mere denial is insufficient, and the presumptions may be displaced only by credible evidence or circumstances showing that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability. A bare statement under Section 313 CrPC, without the accused entering the witness box or leading defence evidence, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient rebuttal. On that basis, the acquittal could not stand and the matter required reconsideration with the presumptions properly applied.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a cheque dishonour complaint could be sustained when the trial court treated the accused's statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 as sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable, but the accused must raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Mere denial is not enough. The presumption can be displaced by credible evidence or circumstances showing that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. In the absence of defence evidence, a bare statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without the accused entering the witness box, cannot by itself be treated as sufficient rebuttal to conclude that the presumption stood displaced.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not be sustained on the basis adopted by the trial court, and the matter had to be reconsidered afresh keeping the statutory presumptions in view.

---