Rebuttable presumptions in cheque dishonour cases: security cheque defence and lack of proof of debt defeated interference with acquittal.

In a challenge to acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court reiterated that presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and that the accused may displace them on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt because no documentary proof of the alleged loan was produced, the claimed cash payments were inconsistent, and the surrounding circumstances supported a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security. Once the presumptions were rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also accepted the trial court's reliance on notice and postal records and found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in view of the defence of security cheque, rebuttal of statutory presumptions, and the complainant's failure to prove a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The petition challenged the acquittal on the footing that the accused had admitted the loan and issuance of cheque, but the record showed that the complainant had not produced any documentary proof of advancement of the alleged loan, despite asserting that bank records could be produced. The court also noted inconsistencies and gaps regarding the dates and manner of alleged cash payments, and found that the accused had raised a probable defence by relying on surrounding circumstances, including the notice demanding return of security cheques and the material brought on record. Applying the settled position that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable and that the accused need only discharge the burden on a preponderance of probabilities, the court held that the presumptions stood rebutted. Once rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also accepted the trial court's reliance on the presumption of service arising from the notice and postal record, and found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal was rejected and no interference was called for.

---