Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law can be rebutted, after which the complainant must prove enforceable debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 arose because the cheque and signature were undisputed. The accused rebutted that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by showing a probable defence that the cheque related to furniture work and that a later cheque for a lesser amount had been encashed. The complainant then had to independently prove a legally enforceable debt, but failed because of material omissions, inconsistencies, and unreliable supporting evidence. The acquittal was therefore justified and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference, and whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt after the accused rebutted the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were not in dispute, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant. That presumption, however, was rebuttable. The accused was found to have raised a probable defence that the cheque had been issued in connection with furniture work and that a later cheque for a lesser amount had been encashed. The complainant's version suffered from material omissions and inconsistencies, including absence of a specific date of loan advancement, no clear mention of the earlier alleged loan in the complaint or evidence, and no supporting reflection of the transaction in the income-tax returns. The evidence of the supporting witness was also found unreliable. On the preponderance of probabilities, the accused successfully rebutted the presumption, and the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove the debt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held to be justified and no interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the accused rebuts the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, the complainant must independently prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

---