Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act were rebutted by a probable defence, sustaining acquittal in cheque dishonour case.

The accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Material inconsistencies in the complainant's case on the loan transaction, payment date, employment arrangement, and enhanced liability weakened the prosecution. The accused denied execution of the cheque, relied on a prior stop-payment instruction after loss of cheque leaves, and supported that defence with bank evidence, creating doubt about execution itself. Even assuming execution, the complainant failed to prove the alleged additional expense component. Applying the limited appellate interference standard in acquittal matters, the trial court's view was found reasonable and the acquittal was maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to sustain the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complaint suffered from material inconsistencies regarding the alleged loan transaction, the date and circumstances of payment, the nature of the alleged employment arrangement, and the basis for the claimed enhanced liability. The accused denied execution of the cheque, relied on a prior stop-payment instruction issued after loss of cheque leaves, and supported that defence through bank evidence. The cheque was claimed to have been issued after the stop memo, which created doubt regarding execution itself. Even assuming execution, the complainant's version contained improbabilities and lacked proof of the alleged additional expense component. On the appellate standard applicable to acquittal, interference is unwarranted when the trial court's view is a reasonable one and the accused has raised a probable defence.

Conclusion: The accused successfully raised a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, thereby rebutting the statutory presumption; the acquittal was rightly maintained and the appeal failed.

---