Rebuttable presumption on signed cheques can be displaced by probabilities, leaving the complainant to prove liability independently.

A signed cheque gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the accused can displace it on a preponderance of probabilities by relying on the complainant's own case and surrounding circumstances. Here, the absence of material particulars in the complaint and notice, the complainant's failure to explain the transaction in chief examination, the delayed loan version, and the improbability of the alleged advance were treated as sufficient to rebut the presumption. Once rebutted, the complainant had to independently prove the transaction and liability, and the prosecution under Section 138 failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to justify the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: A signed cheque attracts the statutory presumption that it was issued for discharge of a debt or liability, even if the cheque was filled up later by the payee. The accused need not disprove the complainant's case beyond reasonable doubt, but must bring on record facts and circumstances making the non-existence of consideration or liability probable. The absence of material particulars in the complaint and notice, the complainant's omission in chief examination to explain the alleged transaction, the late disclosure of the loan version, and the improbability of the alleged advance were treated as sufficient to dislodge the presumption. The accused's version was also supported by the defence evidence and surrounding circumstances.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the offence under Section 138. The acquittal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a signed cheque carries a rebuttable presumption of liability, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities by relying on the complainant's own case and surrounding circumstances; if rebutted, the complainant must independently prove the transaction and liability.

---