Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases shifts the burden to the accused; acquittal set aside and matter remanded.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are admitted, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates and the accused must rebut it by showing that the cheque was not issued towards a debt or liability. The Court found that the trial court had misapplied the burden of proof, so the acquittal was unsustainable and was set aside. The complaint was also found to have been filed within the prescribed limitation period. The matter was remanded for a fresh decision on the existing evidence after hearing the parties.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the acquittal recorded in the cheque dishonour complaint was sustainable in view of the statutory presumption and the burden of proof; (ii) whether the complaint had been lodged within the statutory period of limitation.

Issue (i): Whether the acquittal recorded in the cheque dishonour complaint was sustainable in view of the statutory presumption and the burden of proof.

Analysis: The dishonour of the cheques was not in dispute, and the Court held that the presumption attached to the cheque transaction under the Negotiable Instruments Act had not been properly appreciated. Once issuance of the cheques stood admitted, the burden shifted to the accused to show that they were not issued in discharge of any debt or liability. The Court found that the trial court had misplaced the burden of proof and had not correctly applied the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held to be unsustainable and was set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the complaint had been lodged within the statutory period of limitation.

Analysis: The Court found that the complaint had been filed within the period prescribed for prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act and that the initiation of proceedings was time-barred no further issue.

Conclusion: The complaint was held to be within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was sent back for a fresh decision on the existing evidence after hearing the parties.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once issuance of the cheque and dishonour are established, the statutory presumption operates and the accused must rebut it by showing absence of debt or liability; failure to apply that presumption correctly renders the acquittal unsustainable.

---