Cheque dishonour conviction set aside after accused rebutted the statutory presumption and no legally enforceable debt was proved.

Concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was found unsustainable in revision because the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. Bank records and other documentary support for the alleged loan were absent, and cross-examination elicited admissions that acknowledgments had been issued on repayment, no loan accounts were maintained, and the defence had been consistently raised in the reply notice. On these materials, the accused rebutted the Section 139 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, and the conviction and appellate affirmation were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of conviction for dishonour of cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were perverse and liable to be set aside on revision.

Analysis: The complainant's version of payment of the alleged loan was not supported by bank records or other documentary proof. Cross-examination disclosed admissions that acknowledgments had been issued on repayment, that the complainant did not maintain account records for the alleged loan, and that the accused had raised a consistent defence in the reply notice. The materials marked for the defence, together with the admissions elicited from the complainant, were sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. In the absence of proof of a legally enforceable debt and in the absence of an adverse consideration of the relevant defence material, the conviction could not be sustained.

Conclusion: The finding of guilt was unsustainable, and the conviction and appellate affirmation were set aside in favour of the accused.

---