Rebuttable cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act protect an acquittal where a probable defence is proved.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions as to consideration and liability arise only after execution and issuance of the cheque are proved, and the accused can rebut them by showing a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence, the defence that the cheque had been issued blank in connection with an earlier transaction was found probable, supported by independent witnesses and documents. Applying the double presumption in favour of the accused in an appeal against acquittal, the High Court found no compelling reason or perversity to interfere, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference on the ground that the complainant had proved the cheque transaction and the accused had not rebutted the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumptions as to consideration and liability arise only when the execution and issuance of the cheque are proved. The presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and the accused is required only to establish a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence, the defence version that the cheque was issued blank in connection with an earlier transaction was found probable, supported by independent witnesses and documentary material. In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court also bears in mind the double presumption in favour of the accused and interferes only for compelling reasons.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed, as the accused had successfully rebutted the statutory presumption and no perversity was shown in the trial court's view.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act arise only after execution and issuance of the cheque are established, and they may be rebutted by a probable defence proved on preponderance of probabilities; an acquittal based on such appreciation of evidence should not be interfered with absent compelling reasons.

---