Rebuttal of statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained an acquittal where debt remained doubtful.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were held to be rebutted where the accused established a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's account of lending money and receiving the cheque was found unconvincing because there was no supporting material on the transaction, source of funds, or circumstances of issuance. The defence that the cheque was issued as security in connection with a chitty transaction was accepted as sufficient to create doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complainant's version of lending money and receiving the cheque was found unconvincing in the absence of supporting material regarding the transaction, the source of funds, and the circumstances of issuance of the cheque. The defence evidence suggested that the cheque had been given as security in connection with a chitty transaction, and the Court held that the accused was only required to establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Applying the settled principles governing rebuttal of statutory presumptions, the Court held that the accused had succeeded in showing that the existence of a legally enforceable debt was doubtful and that the trial court's appreciation of evidence did not call for interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions and the acquittal was justified.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once a probable defence is established on a preponderance of probabilities, the statutory presumptions stand rebutted and the complainant must then prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

---