Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases stand unless the accused shows a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities.

Proof of cheque issuance and dishonour for insufficient funds triggers the statutory presumptions of consideration and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The accused must rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by showing facts or circumstances indicating that no legally enforceable debt existed; a bare denial under Section 313 CrPC is not enough. On the record, the invoices, delivery documents, dishonour memos and statutory notices supported the complainant's claim, so the reversal of acquittal and conviction under Section 138 were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in view of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139, and whether the accused had rebutted those presumptions.

Analysis: Proof of issuance of the cheque and its dishonour for insufficient funds activated the presumptions of consideration and of liability under Sections 118(a) and 139. The accused was required to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by bringing on record facts or circumstances showing that no legally enforceable debt or liability existed. Mere denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, without any substantive defence evidence, was insufficient to displace the presumptions. The material on record, including the invoices, delivery documents, dishonour memos, and statutory notices, supported the complainant's case, and the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the finding of guilt was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque and its dishonour are proved, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the holder, and the accused can displace them only by a probable defence shown on a preponderance of probabilities.

---