Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the primary focus is on whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether it was dishonoured due to insufficient funds or other reasons. Once the signatures are admitted or proved, a presumption of liability arises, shifting the onus onto the accused to rebut this presumption by raising a probable defence (!) (!) .

Regarding the accused's stand or defence, the law recognizes that the accused can present a defence, such as claiming that the cheque was issued as a security or that it was misused or forged. However, the defence must be probable and credible. Contradictory or inconsistent versions at different stages of the case can weaken the defence's credibility. It is not explicitly prohibited for the accused to take different stands, but the defence's plausibility and consistency are critical. If the defence is found to be inconsistent, unsubstantiated, or a mere afterthought, it may not be deemed a probable defence to rebut the statutory presumption (!) (!) (!) (!) .

In essence, while the law does not outright prohibit the accused from presenting contradictory or changing defence positions, such contradictions can undermine the defence's credibility and may result in the presumption of liability remaining unrebutted. The court evaluates whether the defence raised is probable and whether it effectively challenges the presumption of debt or liability. If it is not credible or is contradicted by other evidence, it may not be sufficient to rebut the presumption under Section 138 (!) (!) (!) .

Therefore, the law does not categorically bar contradictory stand by the accused, but the defence's plausibility and consistency are essential. A contradictory stand may not be allowed to the extent that it fails to constitute a probable or credible defence, especially if it appears to be an afterthought or is contradicted by other evidence.