Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Pai Amit, AOR Ms. Bhavana Duhoon, Adv. Ms. Pankhuri Bhardwaj, Adv. Mr. Nikhil Pahwa, Adv. Mr. Abhiyudaya Vats, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. D. Bharat Kumar, Adv. Mr. Aman Shukla, Adv. Mr. M. Chandrakanth Reddy, Adv. Mr. Gopal Jha, AOR

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

1. Presumption of Debt and Rebuttal: When a cheque is dishonoured, there is a presumption that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a debt or liability. However, this presumption is rebuttable, and the accused has the burden to raise a probable defence to disprove the existence of consideration or liability. The standard of proof for rebutting this presumption is the preponderance of probabilities (!) (!) (!) .

2. Burden of Proof and Probable Defence: Once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the onus shifts to the accused to establish a probable defence that questions the existence of a debt or consideration. The accused can rely on evidence, including circumstantial evidence, to create doubts about the debt's existence. If the accused successfully raises such doubts, the presumption in favour of the complainant disappears, and the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the debt beyond a reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) .

3. Evidence and Defence Establishment: The accused need not prove his defence beyond reasonable doubt; it is sufficient to raise a probable defence that creates doubts about the debt or liability. The accused can rely on their own evidence or the materials submitted by the complainant to establish this probable defence. Once such a defence is established, the burden of proof reverts to the complainant to prove the debt beyond a reasonable doubt (!) (!) .

4. Standard of Proof: The standard of proof required for rebutting the presumption is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This means the accused must show that it is more probable than not that no debt or consideration exists (!) (!) .

5. Effect of Probable Defence: If the accused successfully raises a probable defence, the presumption in favour of the complainant is rebutted, and the case against the accused cannot be sustained unless the complainant can prove the debt or liability beyond a reasonable doubt. The court must then evaluate the evidence to determine whether the presumption is sufficiently rebutted (!) (!) .

6. Evidence in the Case: In the specific case, the accused issued blank signed cheques for a smaller loan, which was later settled, and the accused had lodged a police complaint regarding the loss of these cheques. The evidence suggested that the cheques were against an enforceable debt, but the accused had established a probable defence that questioned the existence of the debt, including the prior settlement and the police complaint. This shifted the burden back to the complainant to prove the debt beyond a reasonable doubt (!) (!) (!) .

7. Court’s Conclusion: After considering the evidence and the defence, the court found that the accused had successfully raised a probable defence, and the presumption in favour of the debt was rebutted. Consequently, the initial acquittal of the accused was upheld, and the conviction was set aside. The burden on the complainant to prove the debt beyond a reasonable doubt was not met, leading to the reversal of the High Court's decision (!) (!) .

8. Legal Principles: The law clearly states that the presumption of consideration and liability is rebuttable, and the accused need only establish a probable defence based on the preponderance of probabilities. Once such a defence is established, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the debt beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction (!) (!) (!) (!) .

These points summarize the legal principles and the case-specific findings regarding the presumption, the burden of proof, and the importance of establishing a probable defence in cases of dishonoured cheques under the relevant statutes.