Rebuttal of presumption operating against Accused
1 In the scheme of the N.I. Act, mere denial of liability or mere “creation of doubt” is not sufficient to rebut the presumption envisaged by Section 139 of the NI Act.
2 The presumption may be rebutted by showing that the real fact is not as presumed; and mere denial of liability is of no help.
3 The rebuttal may be made by leading evidence that there existed no debt/liability; or on the principle of preponderance of probabilities, by referring to the particular circumstances of the case.
4 The details in the cheque can be filled up by any other person; and handwriting Report in this behalf would not rebut the presumption.
5 The rebuttal may be made by raising a probable defence about the non-existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability either from the material of complainant or by leading evidence in that behalf.
6 Failure of Accused to reply Notice; failure to call upon complainant to return the cheque, are relevant facts in deciding whether presumption is rebutted.
7 Mere denial of transaction and merely stating that Cheques were issued to some other person and said cheques have been misused by complainant, is not sufficient for rebutting presumption.
8 To rebut the presumption, the contention or the defense of the Accused must be backed by some cogent evidentiary material, emanating either from the complainant or by the Accused himself.
9 Throwing up many possibilities is not sufficient. Not any fanciful possibility but a practical probability, which the court is able to accept as true adopting the standards of a prudent man.
10 The Rebuttal principle that may be summarized is: