Cheque presumption rebuttal under the Negotiable Instruments Act failed to prove enforceable debt, so acquittal stood.

Admission of cheque signatures triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but those presumptions remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt because no investment records, account trail, or other corroboration supported the alleged advance, while the surrounding evidence favoured the respondent's version of a smaller loan that had been repaid. A civil decree obtained after failure to comply with a condition for leave to defend was not treated as conclusive proof of liability in the criminal complaint, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the respondent rebutted the statutory presumptions by a probable defence.

Analysis: The respondent admitted signatures on the cheque and therefore the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose. Those presumptions, however, are rebuttable and can be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities by showing that the alleged liability is improbable or does not exist. On the evidence, the complainant failed to establish that Rs. 7,50,000/- had been advanced for investment in shares or debentures, as no supporting investment material, account trail, or other corroboration was produced. The bank entries and surrounding circumstances supported the respondent's version that only a smaller loan had been taken and repaid, while the complainant's case of a larger enforceable liability remained unproved. A civil decree obtained after non-compliance with a condition for leave to defend was held not to be conclusive proof of the alleged liability in the criminal complaint.

Conclusion: The respondent successfully rebutted the presumptions to the extent necessary, and the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 7,50,000/-; the acquittal was upheld.

---