Section 139 presumption rebutted in cheque dishonour case where complainant failed to prove debt and financial capacity.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was held to be rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The accused succeeded by showing a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security, supported by surrounding circumstances, prior dealings and cross-examination. The complainant then had to prove the alleged debt and liability, but failed to establish the source of funds, financial capacity, or a consistent account of the loan transaction through credible evidence. The acquittal was therefore found justified and no interference with the lower appellate court's finding was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of acquittal in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference, in view of the statutory presumption under Section 139 and the respondent's defence that the cheque was issued as security and not towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The complainant's claim of lending a large cash amount was found unsupported by documentary proof or a clear explanation of the source of funds. The evidence also showed inconsistencies regarding the date and manner of payment of the alleged loan, and the complainant did not establish financial capacity with credibility. On the other hand, the defence version was probabilised through the surrounding circumstances, the prior dealings between the parties, and the cross-examination of the complainant, which was sufficient to rebut the presumption on the standard of preponderance of probability. Once the presumption stood rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove the alleged debt and liability.

Conclusion: The acquittal was justified and no ground was made out to interfere with the lower appellate court's finding.

Final Conclusion: The criminal appeal failed and the acquittal of the respondent remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the accused may rebut the statutory presumption by showing a probable defence on preponderance of probability, and if the complainant fails to prove the source and existence of the alleged debt, acquittal cannot be interfered with.

---