Acquittal in cheque dishonour case stands where no perversity or compelling reason justified appellate interference.

Leave to appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution was considered under Section 378(4) CrPC. The complainant had to show compelling circumstances or perversity to justify interference with the acquittal. The court noted that the trial court had found serious doubt about the alleged loan transaction, including the complainant's failure to establish financial capacity to advance the loan. As the materials did not disclose illegality, perversity, or other substantial reason for appellate interference, special leave to appeal was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave should be granted to appeal against the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complainant sought leave under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to challenge the acquittal. The refusal of the trial court to accept the complainant's version was based on its assessment that the complainant had not established the capacity to advance the alleged loan and that the evidence created serious doubt about the transaction. Interference with an acquittal is warranted only in exceptional cases where compelling circumstances or perversity are shown. The presumption of innocence is reinforced by an acquittal, and the materials did not disclose any perversity, illegality, or substantial reason for appellate interference.

Conclusion: Special leave to appeal was not warranted and was refused.

---