Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases is rebuttable; complainant must still prove a legally enforceable debt.

In a cheque dishonour matter, the signature and dishonour being undisputed entitled the complainant to the statutory presumption of liability, but the presumption was rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The defence that the cheques were issued only as security in the course of business was found probable on the record. Because the complainant did not produce account books, calculation details for the alleged interest component, or the person said to have handled the transactions, the alleged debt was not proved with sufficient certainty. The finding in favour of the accused was sustained and the complaint failed for want of proof of a legally enforceable debt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt after the accused rebutted the statutory presumption under the law governing dishonour of cheques.

Analysis: The cheque signature and dishonour were not disputed, so the complainant was entitled to the statutory presumption. However, that presumption was rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The defence version that the cheques were issued only as security in the course of business was accepted as probable from the materials on record. The complainant did not produce account books, calculation details for the alleged interest component, or examine the person who was said to have handled the business transactions. In these circumstances, the existence of the alleged debt was not proved with sufficient certainty.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to establish the legally enforceable debt after rebuttal of the presumption, and the finding in favour of the accused was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was not restored and the complaint failed for want of proof of debt liability.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the accused rebuts the statutory presumption by showing a probable defence, the complainant must independently prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability for conviction under the dishonour-of-cheque law.

---