Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases can be rebutted by a probable defence against enforceable debt.

Statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities where the defence raises a probable case against a legally enforceable debt. The text notes that the complainant relied on cheque dishonour and notice, but the defence produced oral and documentary evidence showing the cheque arose from a partnership arrangement and the agreement dated 03.01.2015 was admitted. It also highlights the absence of particulars on the alleged loan, including when it was advanced, on what terms, and when repayment was due. On that basis, the presumption was treated as rebutted and the existence of enforceable debt was found unproved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant established a legally enforceable debt and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption so as to sustain conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complainant relied on the cheque dishonour and statutory notice to invoke the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defence, supported by oral and documentary evidence, showed that the cheque was issued in the context of a partnership arrangement and that the complainant had admitted execution of the agreement dated 03.01.2015. The complaint also lacked particulars as to when the alleged loan was advanced, on what terms it was advanced, and when repayment was to be made. Applying the principle that the accused may rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, the evidence raised a probable defence that created doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt; the acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

---