Cheque dishonour presumption stands when issuance is admitted and no specific defence rebuts the complainant's loan version.

Where the accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheques, and receipt of notice, the statutory presumption in favour of cheque liability remained unrebutted because the complainant's account of the loan transaction was not challenged in cross-examination. The court held that a defence of security cheques, unsupported by timely response or credible evidence, was improbable on the record. It further held that the appellate court could not reject the conviction on the basis of the complainant's alleged financial incapacity when that point was not a pleaded defence and had not been specifically put in issue by the accused. The acquittal was therefore unsustainable and the conviction was restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal was sustainable when the complainant's evidence regarding the loan transaction and issuance of cheques remained unshaken, and whether the appellate court could reject the conviction on the basis of doubtful financial capacity of the complainant in the absence of a specific defence.

Analysis: The complainant's version that the accused borrowed money and issued the cheques towards repayment was stated in the complaint and examination-in-chief and was not challenged in cross-examination. The accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheques and receipt of notice, but did not reply to the notice or take timely action supporting the defence of security cheques. The defence was found to be improbable on the evidence. The appellate court's reliance on the complainant's financial capacity was held to be misplaced because that was not the pleaded defence, and a finding on that aspect could not be introduced without a specific challenge from the accused. The presumption attached to the dishonoured cheques was therefore not displaced.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction recorded by the Magistrate was restored in favour of the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The criminal appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the conviction under the cheque dishonour provision stood revived.

Ratio Decidendi: Where execution of the cheque and receipt of notice are admitted and the complainant's evidence of the loan transaction remains unchallenged, the accused must raise and substantiate a specific defence to rebut the statutory presumption; a finding on the complainant's financial capacity cannot be used to overturn conviction in the absence of such a defence.

---