The holder of a cheque shall be presumed to have received the cheque for discharge, in whole or in part, of a debt or liability. The burden of proof rests on the accused to prove that the cheque was not in discharge of the debt or liability. The accused's explanation must be proved to be true to discharge the presumption. The prosecution must prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The accused need not adduce evidence to discharge a legal presumption even if the standard of discharge is 'proof beyond reasonable doubt'.

I.A. Ansari, J.

1. What is statutory or legal presumption? How does the statutory presumption differ from natural presumption or presumption of fact? How statutory or legal presumption can be discharged by an accused? What is the standard of proof required, in a criminal trial, to discharge a legal or statutory presumption? Can statutory or legal presumption be taken to have been discharged by an accused probalises his defence by giving reasonable explanation as regards the evidence appearing against him? Whether prosecution of a drawer of a cheque, for dishonour of the cheque on the ground of insufficiency of funds in the account of the drawer, is permissible if, between the date of the issue of the cheque and the date of presentation thereof to the bank for payment, a part of the amount, for which the cheque has been drawn, is paid to, and received by, the drawee? These are some of the prominent questions, which the present revision has thrown up for determination.

2. This revision is directed against the judgment and order, dated 12.9.01, passed, in Crl. Appeal No. 54(M)/2000, by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nagaon, dismissing the appeal and upholding thereby the judgment and order, dated 22.08.2000, passed by the learned Magistrate, 1st class, Nagaon, in CR Case No. 2150/96, whereby the accused-petitioner stood convicted under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, suffer rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months.

3. Before I deal with the merit of the present revision petition, it is necessary to take note of the material facts, which have given rise to the present revision petition.

(i) The Opposite party No. 2 herein instituted a complaint case in the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nagaon, the case of the complainant being, in brief, thus: M/s Sangita is a partnership firm dealing in electronic goods, namely, Akai, Onida and Panasonic products, the complainant being a partner of the said firm. The accused, as proprietor of a shop, which was run under the name and style of Dulal Store, used to buy television sets of Akai brand from the complainant's firm. Such purchases were made by the accused by making payments, sometimes, in cash and, on some occasions, by issuing cheques. On one occasion, when the credited amount of the accused swelled up to Rs. 75,000/-, the accused issued an Account Payee cheque, dated 31.5.96, amounting to Rs. 75,000/- drawn on the account maintained by him with the State Bank of India, the cheque having been drawn in favour of the complainant's firm, namely, M/s Sangita. The cheque was presented by the complainant's firm for encashment through United Bank of India, Nagaon Branch, where the complainant's firm had its account. The cheque, so presented, however, bounced, on 30.5.96, due to insufficiency of funds in the account of the accused. The said cheque was, thereafter, presented twice for encashment, once on 20.8.96 and, then, on 3.10.96, but the same was returned by the bank with the endorsement to the effect that the cheque could not be honoured due to insufficiency of balance. The complainant, then, issued a notice, dated 15.10.96, calling upon the accused to make payment of the amount of Rs. 75,000/- covered by the said cheque. As no payment was made by the accused, the complainant instituted the complaint.

(ii) To the charges framed against him under Section 420 IPC and Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, the "N.I. Act"), the accused pleaded not guilty. In support of his case, the complainant examined six witnesses. The accused was, then, examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and, in his examination aforementioned, the accused denied that he had committed the offences alleged to have been committed by him, the case of the defence being, briefly stated, thus : The accused was liable to pa