Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases extends to debt liability when cheque issuance is proved and unrebutted.

Once issuance of the cheque is proved in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant and extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. That presumption is rebuttable, but the accused must rebut it by evidence; a statement under Section 313 CrPC is not substantive evidence and cannot by itself displace the presumption. The analysis states that, where the accused led no defence evidence and the cheque, dishonour, and statutory notice were proved, the trial court erred in insisting on independent proof of loan details and repayment particulars. The acquittal was therefore considered unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a cheque dishonour complaint was sustainable when issuance of the cheque and service of notice were proved and the accused led no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The complaint evidence established the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of statutory notice. Once issuance of the cheque stood proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant and extended to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. That presumption was rebuttable, but the accused did not enter the witness box or produce any defence evidence. The statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was not substantive evidence and could not by itself rebut the presumption. The trial court erred in insisting on proof of loan details, repayment particulars, interest, and default amount despite the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable. The cheque was held to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was reversed, and the respondent was found guilty of the cheque dishonour offence with consequential sentence and monetary liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution or issuance of the cheque is proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the accused must rebut that presumption by evidence.

---