Rebuttable statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases defeated by lack of financial capacity and probable defence evidence.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the Section 139 presumption is rebuttable, and the accused may displace it on a preponderance of probabilities, including through the complainant's own evidence. The Court accepted that the complainant failed to establish adequate financial capacity or documentary support for the alleged cash loan, while defence evidence supported the plea that only a smaller amount was borrowed and repaid with interest. It also treated the surrounding circumstances, including multiple complaints and alleged blank cheque misuse, as strengthening the defence. On that basis, the acquittal was not shown to be illegal or perverse, and interference in revision was unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in the cheque dishonour case warranted interference in revision in view of the rebuttal of the statutory presumption, the complainant's financial capacity, and the evidentiary circumstances surrounding issuance of the cheque.

Analysis: The complaint rested on an alleged friendly loan and dishonour of a cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court found that the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is rebuttable and that the accused may discharge the burden on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the complainant's own evidence. On the evidence, the Court accepted that the complainant had not shown adequate financial capacity or documentary support for advancing the claimed cash loan, while the defence witnesses consistently supported the plea that only a much smaller amount had been taken and repaid with interest. The Court also treated the surrounding circumstances, including the pattern of multiple complaints and the allegation of blank cheque misuse, as sufficient to displace the presumption.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption, and the appellate acquittal was not shown to be illegal or perverse. Interference was therefore unwarranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and an accused may defeat it on a preponderance of probabilities by demonstrating lack of financial capacity, improbability of the alleged debt, or other circumstances creating a probable defence, without entering the witness box.

---