Rebuttal of statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law upheld where complainant failed to prove legally enforceable liability.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 favour the cheque holder, but they remain rebuttable. The accused need not enter the witness box and may displace the presumption by relying on the complainant's own materials if a probable defence is shown on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the complainant produced no supporting witnesses or documentary proof of the alleged business arrangement, settlement, source of funds, or factual basis of liability, while the defence version that the cheques were not issued for a legally enforceable debt was found probable. The presumption stood rebutted and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the acquittal under Section 138 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder of the cheque, but they are rebuttable. The accused is not bound to enter the witness box and may rebut the presumption by relying on the complainant's own materials, provided a probable defence is raised on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the complainant failed to produce supporting witnesses or documentary material to prove the alleged joint business arrangement, the alleged settlement, the source of funds, or the factual basis of the claimed liability. The absence of corroboration from the alleged negotiators and from the person in whose name the work was executed, together with the defence version that the cheques were not issued in discharge of any debt, was sufficient to probabilise the defence and displace the presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted and the acquittal was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must prove, on the evidence as a whole, that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability; the accused may rebut the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities without adducing defence evidence of his own.

---