Cheque Dishonour Presumption Rebutted Where Complainant Failed to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must first establish the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt or liability before the Section 139 presumption can operate. Where the accused offers a credible defence supported by documents, including stop-payment instructions and a theft complaint, and the complainant fails to prove the alleged loan or financial capacity through cogent evidence, the presumption is rebutted. On that footing, the acquittal was not shown to be erroneous and was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour case turned on whether the complainant had first established that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused set up a specific defence that the cheque and signed papers were misused and supported that stand with documentary material showing stop-payment instructions and a criminal complaint concerning theft of cheques. The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises only after the complainant discharges the initial burden of proving the foundational facts of a legally enforceable liability. As the complainant failed to adduce cogent oral or documentary evidence of the alleged cash loan or financial capacity, the presumption stood rebutted and the burden did not shift successfully back to the accused.

Conclusion: The acquittal was rightly recorded and did not warrant interference; the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not proved.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, the complainant must first prove the foundational existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability before the statutory presumption can operate, and a credible defence supported by evidence can rebut that presumption and sustain acquittal.

---