Rebuttable presumptions in cheque dishonour cases fail where the complainant cannot prove a legally enforceable debt.

In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the complainant had to prove the foundational facts that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were rebuttable, and the accused could displace them by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probability. Because the complainant produced no supporting documentary material, such as loan sanction papers, bank statements, or proof of disbursement, the alleged debt remained unsubstantiated. The defence created doubt about the existence of liability, and the acquittal was therefore found justified with no illegality or perversity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference, particularly in light of the statutory presumptions and the complainant's failure to prove the underlying debt and issuance of cheque towards a legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The complainant was required to establish the foundational facts showing that the cheque was issued in discharge of debt or liability. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and the accused may discharge the burden by showing a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. In the present case, there was no supporting documentary material such as loan sanction papers, bank statement, or proof of disbursement to substantiate the complaint. The defence, therefore, successfully created doubt about the existence of the debt and the complainant failed to bring sufficient material to sustain conviction.

Conclusion: The acquittal was justified and no illegality or perversity was found in the impugned judgment.

---