Rebuttable presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed where no proof of enforceable debt or authorised evidence was produced.

A cheque dishonour complaint failed because the complainant did not prove that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt. Only the cheque, bank endorsement, notice and acknowledgment were produced; no loan documents or repayment records supported the alleged liability. The accused's plea that the cheque had been issued as security and that the claim was time-barred was treated as a probable defence, rebutting the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complainant then failed to prove enforceable debt by further credible evidence. The complaint also failed because the witness examined was not the person authorised by the society's resolution, so his evidence was unauthorised and could not be relied upon.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt and that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted. (ii) Whether the evidence of the complainant's witness could be relied upon when the witness examined was not the person authorized in the resolution.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant proved that the cheque was issued towards a legally recoverable debt and that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on a cheque said to have been issued in discharge of a loan liability, but the complainant produced only the cheque, bank endorsement, notice and acknowledgment. No loan documents, repayment records, or other supporting material were produced to show that the accused had in fact borrowed the alleged amount or that the cheque was issued for repayment of an enforceable debt. The accused's defence that the cheque had been given earlier as security and that the alleged debt was time-barred was found sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Once rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to adduce further evidence.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove that the cheque represented a legally recoverable debt, and the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Issue (ii): Whether the evidence of the complainant's witness could be relied upon when the witness examined was not the person authorized in the resolution.

Analysis: The authorization placed on record named a different person to represent the complainant society, but the witness examined was another individual. In view of this mismatch, the evidence of that witness was held to be unauthorised and incapable of supporting the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The complainant's witness was not duly authorized, and his evidence could not be relied upon.

Final Conclusion: The dismissal of the complaint was upheld because the complainant failed to establish liability under the cheque and also failed to support its case through competent authorized evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable; once the accused raises a probable defence, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the enforceable debt by credible evidence.

---