Rebuttable cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed where loan proof and financial capacity were not established.

Admitted cheque signatures did not by themselves make the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act conclusive, because the presumption remained rebuttable. The complainant's case was weakened by inconsistencies on the loan date, execution of the supporting agreement, and completion of cheque particulars, while the attesting witness did not reliably prove the document's contents or execution. The absence of bank statements, income-tax returns, business accounts, or other credible proof of funds, coupled with an unsupported explanation of savings and gold sales, made the alleged loan transaction improbable. The court held that no legally enforceable debt or liability was proved and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act arose from the admitted signatures on the cheque, and whether the complainant successfully proved the loan transaction, the execution of the supporting document, and his financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.

Analysis: The cheque signatures were not in dispute, but the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained rebuttable. The complainant's version suffered from material inconsistencies on the date of lending, the manner of execution of the supporting agreement, and the filling up of cheque particulars. The witness to the document did not prove its contents or execution in a reliable manner. The complainant also failed to produce bank statements, income-tax returns, business accounts, or credible proof of the alleged sources of funds. The claimed explanation regarding savings and sale of gold was unsupported by evidence. On the facts, the surrounding circumstances made the alleged loan transaction improbable and insufficient to establish a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the debt or liability. The acquittal was upheld.

---