Cheque dishonour presumptions can be rebutted by a probable defence, shifting the burden back to prove debt and lending capacity.

In cheque dishonour proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 apply once execution of the cheque is not disputed, but they remain rebuttable. Where the accused raises a probable defence through inconsistencies in the complainant's version, surrounding circumstances, and material suggesting the cheque leaf relates to an earlier period, the burden shifts back to the complainant. The complainant must then independently prove the legally enforceable debt and financial capacity to advance the loan. On the facts noted, the defence was found probable, the presumptions stood rebutted, and the acquittal was left undisturbed, with leave to appeal refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act should be granted when the accused has raised a probable defence and rebutted the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on dishonour of cheque alleged to have been issued towards repayment of a loan. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied once execution of the cheque was not disputed, but those presumptions were rebuttable. On the evidence, the accused brought out serious improbabilities in the complainant's version, including inconsistencies regarding the date of issuance of the cheque, surrounding matrimonial disputes, and material evidence suggesting that the cheque leaf related to an earlier period. The evidence also left the complainant's financial capacity to advance the alleged loan unproved. In such circumstances, the defence was held to be probable and sufficient to displace the presumption, after which the burden shifted back to the complainant to establish the debt and capacity to lend.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption, and the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the ability to advance the amount. The acquittal therefore called for no interference, and leave to appeal was refused.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed at the threshold, leaving the trial court's order undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, once the accused raises a probable defence and rebuts the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must independently prove the debt and financial capacity; a reasoned acquittal will not be disturbed in leave proceedings unless interference is warranted.

---