Rebuttable presumption in cheque dishonour cases fails where the complainant cannot prove financial capacity or legally enforceable debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arise once cheque execution is admitted, but they remain rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rely on the complainant's own materials and surrounding circumstances, without entering the witness box, and a signed blank cheque does not by itself establish liability. Here, the complainant failed to prove financial capacity to advance the asserted amount, and the supporting materials were unsubstantiated. The defence therefore created a probable doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the presumption stood rebutted; the acquittal was liable to be affirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant succeeded in rebutting the accused's defence and establishing the legally enforceable liability for the cheque amount in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are rebuttable, and the accused may discharge the burden on a preponderance of probabilities by relying on the complainant's own materials and surrounding circumstances, without necessarily entering the witness box. A signed blank cheque can be filled up by the payee, but that does not by itself conclude the issue of liability. On the evidence, the complainant's financial capacity to advance the alleged amount remained unproved, his own testimony showed limited income, and the materials relied on to explain funding were unsupported. In these circumstances, the defence created a probable doubt about the existence of the asserted liability.

Conclusion: The presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the alleged debt or liability; the acquittal was therefore liable to be affirmed in favour of the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption of liability is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and the complainant's inability to prove financial capacity may displace the presumption where the defence raises a probable case.

---