Rebuttable presumption under cheque dishonour law defeated where complainant failed to prove debt and accused showed a probable defence.

Once execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a rebuttable presumption of debt or liability, operating as a reverse onus clause. The accused can rebut it by showing a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and here the defence of a lost cheque book and absence of a legally enforceable debt was accepted as probable. The complainant failed to prove the underlying transaction, receipt of goods, or supporting account and stock records with cogent material. On that basis, the acquittal was found to be supported by the evidence and leave to appeal was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted in view of the presumption under Section 139 and the accused's defence that rebutted the complainant's case.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence and documents were scrutinised against the settled law that once execution of the cheque is admitted, Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption of debt or liability. That presumption operates as a reverse onus clause, but the accused need only establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The record showed that the complainant could not satisfactorily prove the underlying transaction, the receipt of goods by the accused, or the supporting account records and stock documents. The defence that the cheque book had been lost and that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt was accepted as a probable defence, and the complainant failed to dislodge it with cogent material.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was rightly refused because the acquittal was supported by the evidence and no interference was called for.

---