Rebuttable presumption in cheque dishonour cases failed when complainant could not prove financial capacity and probable defence succeeded.

The statutory presumption arising from the cheque and signature remained rebuttable, and once the accused questioned the complainant's financial capacity, the complainant had to prove the ability to advance the alleged cash loan. She failed to do so because there was no independent income, no documentary support for family resources, no account extracts, and no reliable proof of possession of the alleged cash. The timing of the loan was also uncertain, while the defence that the cheque had been taken blank and used in prior transactions was supported by documents and cross-examination. The accused therefore probabilised a probable defence, and the acquittal was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in the cheque dishonour prosecution called for interference when the complainant failed to prove financial capacity and the accused raised a probable defence.

Analysis: The cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumption, but that presumption remained rebuttable. Once the accused questioned the complainant's financial capacity, the complainant had to establish the ability to advance the alleged cash loan. The evidence showed that she had no independent income, no documentary support for the claimed family resources, no account extracts, and no reliable proof of possession of the alleged cash. The timing of the alleged loan was also uncertain, and the defence version regarding prior transactions and the cheque being obtained blank was supported by documentary material and cross-examination.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove financial capacity and the accused successfully probabilised the defence. The acquittal was rightly sustained and no interference was warranted.

---