Rebuttal of presumption – On the aspects relating to preponderance of probabilities, the accused has to bring on record such facts and such circumstances which may lead the Court to conclude either that the consideration did not exist or that its non-existence was so probable that a prudent man would, under the circumstances of the case, act upon the plea that the consideration did not exist.

(SC) Decided on: 15.03.2019

Loan of Rs.8 lakhs -- In the complaint, it has been simply stated that the loan of Rs.8 lakhs was advanced to the accused in the month of March 2015 -- No specific date has been mentioned -- No other particulars have been given -- No security document had been obtained from the accused -- Complainant had also not taken any receipt of the loan -- There is no document on record to show the loan transaction -- There is no date as to when the loan was demanded back -- In the cross-examination, the complainant stated that he does not know accused and his family personally he knows them through brother-in-law of the accused -- Complainant admits that a sale deed was executed in his favour by the mother of the accused and further three cases were withdrawn by him -- All this evidence supports the defence version raised by the accused -- Presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act has been rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence -- Leave to file appeal dismissed.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 02.11.2018

Rebuttal of presumption – Presumption u/s 139 arises when the cheque is in favour of holder of the cheque which was issued by the accused but the accused can rebut the presumption by raising probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 25.09.2018

Rebuttal of presumption – Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 10.09.2018

No document to show the loan transaction -- No particulars at which place and in whose presence the amount was given; whether it was given in cash or through cheque -- Nothing on record as to when the demand was raised; whether any security document was obtained -- Father of the accused filed a written complaint against the complainant to take action for breaking the glass of the car etc. -- When the relations between complainant and accused families were strained and the complaint was filed against the complainant and that was pending, it is improbable that the complainant will give a loan of Rs.3,63,000/- to the accused without even getting any receipt or security document -- Presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act can be rebutted by raising probable defence and the accused had raised a probable defence and the presumption was rebutted.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 03.08.2018

Presumption u/s 139 can be rebutted by the accused by raising probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on : 19.09.2017

No document to show the loan transaction -- Complainant has not produced any document on record to show the loan transaction -- Neither income tax return nor any account books have been produced to show the transaction -- Agreement has not been proved on record as per law, but the oral statements support and corroborate the defence version -- Cheque is signed in Punjabi and filled by some other person of complainant side -- By raising probable defence, which is supported and corroborated by the cross-examination of the complainant's witnesses and by the defence witnesses, the presumption has been duly rebutted by the accused.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 19.05.2017

Accused has to raise probable defence, which is to be supported and corroborated by evidence to rebut the presumption u/s 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 30.03.2017

Acquittal of accused -- No date has been mentioned as to when the loan was given to the accused -- There is no document on record to show these loan transactions -- There is nothing in the complaints as to when the loan was demanded back by the complainants from the accused -- There are no particulars of liability of any type in the complaints – On the other hand, the accused has raised probable defence.

(P&H HC) Decided on: 20.03.2017