Rebuttal of statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law fails when complainant cannot prove debt and financial capacity.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only where the cheque is issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the Section 139 presumption is rebuttable on a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rebut that presumption from his own evidence or the complainant's material. In this matter, the complainant's case was weakened by the absence of a receipt or written acknowledgment, no proof of income or bank record, an unsatisfactory explanation of financial capacity, and non-examination of the alleged witness to the transaction. Those deficiencies, together with the plea of cheque misuse, rebutted the presumption and left the foundational facts unproved, so the conviction and sentence could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the complainant had proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt and his financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.

Analysis: Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 applies only when the cheque is issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Section 139 creates a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, but the accused is required only to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence may be established from the accused's own evidence or from the complainant's materials. Here, the complainant's evidence was found deficient on material particulars: the alleged loan was not supported by any receipt or written acknowledgment, no proof of income or bank record was produced, the complainant did not satisfactorily explain his financial capacity to advance the amount, and the alleged witness to the transaction was not examined. These circumstances, along with the defence plea of misuse of the cheque, were sufficient to create doubt about the existence of consideration and to shift the burden back to the complainant.

Conclusion: The statutory presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the foundational facts necessary to sustain the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the accused raises a probable defence showing that the alleged debt is doubtful, the complainant must affirmatively prove the existence of a legally enforceable liability and the capacity to advance the amount.

---