Cheque dishonour presumptions rebutted by probable defence where complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt.

In a Section 138 prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were held to stand rebutted where the accused raised a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's claim of a loan was found unreliable because the complaint and chief affidavit omitted the loan date, and cross-examination with documentary material indicated earlier timber-related dealings and an alternative commercial relationship. The cheque amount also matched an earlier agreement, supporting the defence version. As the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138.

Analysis: The complainant's version of advancement of a loan was found unreliable because the complaint and chief affidavit did not disclose the date of the alleged loan, and the cross-examination together with the documentary evidence showed earlier timber-related transactions between the parties. The evidence also showed that the cheque amount matched the amount mentioned in an earlier agreement, and the complainant admitted documents indicating a different commercial relationship. The accused was only required to raise a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, not to disprove liability beyond reasonable doubt. On the materials on record, the defence version was found more probable and sufficient to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld because the complainant failed to prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Final Conclusion: The conviction threshold under Section 138 was not satisfied, and the challenge to the acquittal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour prosecution fails where the accused rebuts the statutory presumptions by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities and the complainant cannot prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

---