Cheque dishonour presumptions under the NI Act remain unrebutted where no probable defence is shown, conviction affirmed.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the cheque and dishonour are proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate for the complainant. The accused may rebut them by direct or circumstantial evidence, or by a probable defence established on a preponderance of probabilities. On the material before it, the Calcutta HC found no probable defence and held that the evidence did not dislodge the complainant's case. It also reiterated that the usual rigour of an appeal against acquittal does not apply with the same force in cheque dishonour matters, which are quasi-criminal in nature, and therefore affirmed the conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to justify interference with the appellate conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the factual foundation for the cheque and dishonour is established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the complainant. The accused may rebut them by direct or circumstantial evidence, or by demonstrating a probable defence, and the standard is preponderance of probabilities. The Court found that no probable defence had been created and that the evidence on record did not dislodge the complainant's case. It also reiterated that the ordinary rigour of an appeal against acquittal does not apply with the same force in cheque dishonour proceedings, which are quasi-criminal in nature.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions were not rebutted and no ground for interference was made out; the appellate conviction and sentence were affirmed and the appeal was dismissed.

---