Rebuttable presumption in cheque cases: complainant must prove legally enforceable debt once probable defence is shown.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and may be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the accused denied liability from the reply notice stage and relied on the complainant's admissions that supporting invoices and an agreement were not produced. Although the cheque, dishonour memo and notice were on record, the complainant failed to prove the underlying legally enforceable debt with reliable evidence. The absence of corroborative documents, particularly in the asserted liquor transaction, weakened the claim of liability. The appellate acquittal was therefore left undisturbed and conviction was not restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139.

Analysis: The cheque, dishonour memo and notice were on record, but the complainant did not produce invoices or any other material to establish the underlying liability. The defence consistently denied liability from the reply notice stage and relied on the complainant's own admissions in cross-examination, including the assertion that invoices and an agreement existed but were not produced. The statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable and can be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. Once rebutted, the complainant had to establish the debt by reliable evidence, which was not done. The absence of invoices in a claimed liquor transaction also undermined the asserted liability.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, the presumption stood rebutted, and the acquittal recorded by the appellate court did not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 could not be restored, and the appeal failed on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and once the accused raises a probable defence, the complainant must prove the legally enforceable debt by cogent evidence.

---