Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was rebutted by unexplained cheque-liability mismatch, so leave to appeal was refused.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the undisputed cheque and signature triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 in favour of the complainant, but the presumption was rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities because the materials showed an outstanding liability of about Rs.8,99,000 against a cheque for Rs.9,99,000 and no explanation was offered for the extra Rs.1 lakh. That discrepancy was treated as going to the root of the claim and sufficient to establish a probable defence. Leave to appeal against the acquittal was therefore refused, and the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the acquittal in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in view of the discrepancy between the amount stated to be due and the amount mentioned in the cheque, and the effect of the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were not disputed, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, arose in favour of the complainant. However, on comparison of the complaint, legal notice, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, the outstanding liability was found to be about Rs.8,99,000/-, while the cheque was for Rs.9,99,000/-. The complainant offered no explanation for the additional Rs.1 lakh. The discrepancy was treated as going to the root of the matter and as sufficient to create a probable defence, thereby rebutting the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not warranted, and the refusal to interfere with the acquittal was upheld.

---