An accused may rebut Section 139’s presumption through the complainant’s evidence, shifting the burden to prove the alleged loan.

The complainant alleged that the respondent borrowed ₹6,00,000 on 10 January 2016 and later issued a cheque for that amount, which was dishonoured for insufficient funds.

The respondent’s reply notice disputed the alleged ₹6,00,000 loan and asserted that he had borrowed ₹3,00,000 in 2014, issuing a blank cheque as security.

The trial court convicted him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the Sessions Court reversed the conviction and acquitted him.

The complainant appealed against the acquittal under Section 372 CrPC.

Whether the acquittal of the respondent by the appellate court was sustainable

Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raise presumptions, upon admission of execution of a cheque, that it was issued for consideration and towards discharge of a debt or liability; those presumptions are rebuttable.

Under Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418, the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by relying on the complainant’s evidence, other record materials, or surrounding circumstances, and need not testify.

Once a probable defence rebuts the presumption, the burden shifts to the complainant to establish the alleged debt.

The court accepted that the admitted execution of the cheque initially attracted the statutory presumptions.

However, the respondent’s reply notice had contemporaneously denied the alleged ₹6,00,000 loan and described the cheque as security for an earlier ₹3,00,000 loan.

The complainant did not substantiate the alleged 2016 advance.

Her evidence showed pension as her only regular income, while the bank statement reflected a balance of ₹403 on 10 June 2016; the earlier account transactions relied on by the trial court were from 2011 and had no relevant connection to the alleged loan.

Her explanation that her children had given her ₹10,00,000 was absent from the complaint and unsupported by evidence.

The cross-examination and surrounding circumstances therefore raised a probable defence, rebutting the presumption; the complainant then failed to prove the alleged ₹6,00,000 debt.

It dismissed the criminal appeal and confirmed the respondent’s acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.