Cheque dishonour presumption rebutted where accused showed probable defence and complainant failed to prove legally recoverable debt.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the admitted cheque signatures attracted the Section 139 presumption, but the accused rebutted it by showing that he had supplied goods to the complainant and by eliciting admissions supporting that business relationship. The complainant failed to produce bills or invoices to prove the alleged liability, and the ledger evidence was excluded as inadmissible for want of a Section 65B certificate. The trial court's view that a probable defence had been raised and that a legally recoverable debt was not proved was held to be a plausible view, so the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: The admitted signatures on the cheques attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused, however, produced material to show that he had supplied goods to the complainant and the complainant also admitted in cross-examination that the accused used to sell goods to him. The complainant failed to produce bills or invoices supporting the alleged liability and the ledger relied upon was held inadmissible for want of a certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. On this evidence, the trial court's view that the accused had raised a probable defence and that the complainant had failed to prove a legally recoverable debt was found to be a plausible view.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and no interference was called for in the appeal.

---