Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by a probable defence where liability is not proved.

In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 was held rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and the accused succeeded in showing a probable defence through deficiencies in proof of supply, delivery, invoices, and legally enforceable liability; the acquittal was therefore sustained. A belated request to examine the Sales Tax Officer under Section 311 CrPC was also declined because it came after long pendency and multiple opportunities, with no adequate explanation for reopening evidence; the refusal to allow further examination was affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138 of that Act. (ii) Whether the refusal to allow examination of the Sales Tax Officer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the respondent had rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 so as to sustain the acquittal under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable and can be displaced by a probable defence shown on a preponderance of probabilities. The evidence was found deficient on the core facts of supply of goods, delivery, supporting invoices, and reliable proof of a legally enforceable liability. The complainant's witnesses were not able to establish the transaction with clarity, the account evidence was considered inconsistent, and the defence version that the cheques were advance security cheques gained support from the surrounding circumstances. The statutory presumption was therefore held to have been rebutted.

Conclusion: The acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the refusal to allow examination of the Sales Tax Officer under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 called for interference.

Analysis: The request was moved at a belated stage after the matter had remained pending for a long time and multiple opportunities had already been available. The Court found no satisfactory explanation for the late application and accepted the view that the request did not merit reopening the proceedings for further evidence.

Conclusion: The order refusing the application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was affirmed and the issue was decided against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The judgment and connected order were found to be well reasoned, the leave to appeal was declined, and the connected appeals ceased to survive.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the accused may rebut the statutory presumption by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, and where the complainant fails to prove the foundational facts of liability and supply, acquittal must stand.

---