Rebuttable presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act: accused's probable defence shifted the burden back to the complainant.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, proof of cheque execution raises only a rebuttable presumption of liability under Section 139. The accused may displace that presumption by showing circumstances that make the non-existence of a legally enforceable debt reasonably probable, including surrounding facts casting doubt on the alleged loan transaction. Once a probable defence is raised, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the debt and the complainant's financial capacity. On the facts discussed, the accused rebutted the presumption and the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt, so the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference on the ground that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139.

Analysis: The complainant proved execution of the cheque, but that by itself did not establish that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused set up a plausible defence by pointing to surrounding circumstances, including the prior property transaction, the manner in which the cheque allegedly came into the complainant's possession, and the improbability of the alleged loan transaction. The Court held that the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and can be displaced by evidence or by circumstances making the non-existence of debt reasonably probable. Once the accused raised such a probable defence, the burden shifted back to the complainant to prove the loan and his financial capacity, which he failed to do.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption under Section 139, and the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The acquittal was therefore not liable to be disturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, proof of cheque execution raises only a rebuttable presumption of liability, and once the accused establishes a probable defence, the complainant must independently prove the debt and supporting financial capacity.

---