Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases can be rebutted by challenging financial capacity and transaction credibility.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the admitted cheque and signature triggered the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant, but the presumption remained rebuttable through cross-examination or a probable defence. The accused challenged the complainant's financial capacity to advance the amount and pointed to the absence of credible proof of funds, supporting documents for alleged sale proceeds, and a satisfactory explanation for the long period without interest. On reappreciation of the evidence, the complainant failed to establish the debt with sufficient reliability and the defence created serious doubt about the transaction. The accused therefore rebutted the presumption, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the cheque dishonour case and whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption by challenging the complainant's financial capacity.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were not disputed, so the presumption under Section 139 arose in favour of the complainant. That presumption remained rebuttable, and the accused could rebut it by cross-examination or by raising a probable defence. The accused questioned the complainant's capacity to advance Rs.8,00,000/- and the absence of credible material showing the source of funds. The complainant did not examine his mother, did not produce reliable supporting documents for the alleged sale proceeds, and did not give a satisfactory explanation regarding the long period during which no interest was paid. On reappreciation of the evidence, the complainant failed to prove the debt beyond reasonable doubt and the defence version created a serious doubt about the transaction.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the presumption, and the acquittal did not call for interference.

---