Statutory presumptions in cheque cases can be rebutted by a probable defence and lack of proof of enforceable debt.

A cheque dishonour dispute turned on whether the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt and whether the statutory presumptions were rebutted. The complainant failed to prove any prior relationship or loan transaction and produced no independent evidence of liability. The accused promptly denied liability, consistently pleaded that the cheque had been given blank in connection with a vehicle transaction involving a third party related to the complainant, and relied on surrounding circumstances, including the civil court record and the admitted vehicle agreement. Those materials made the defence version probable and exposed inconsistencies in the complainant's case. Mere admission of signature on the cheque was not enough to establish liability.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and whether the statutory presumptions stood rebutted.

Analysis: The complainant failed to establish any prior acquaintance or transaction with the accused and produced no independent evidence to support the alleged loan. The accused promptly replied to the statutory notice denying liability and set up a consistent defence that the cheque had been handed over blank in connection with a vehicle transaction with a third party closely related to the complainant. The surrounding circumstances, including the civil court record and the admitted vehicle agreement, supported the defence version and also exposed inconsistencies in the complainant's stand. Mere admission of signature on the cheque was insufficient, by itself, to compel a finding in favour of the complainant when execution and liability were effectively disputed and the defence version was made probable.

Conclusion: The cheque was not proved to have been issued for a legally enforceable debt, and the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions.

---