Presumption under Section 139 in cheque dishonour cases may be rebutted where the defence version is probable and records are lacking.

In a cheque dishonour complaint, leave to appeal against acquittal was refused because the complainant failed to prove the alleged loan transaction with adequate particulars or supporting records, such as a dated advancement record, security document, account books, or income-tax return. The accused's explanation that the cheque had been issued only as security in another transaction was found probable, and the trial court's view that the Section 139 presumption stood rebutted was supported by the record. As the acquittal was neither perverse nor contrary to law, no ground existed to disturb it.

---

---

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

Analysis: The application for leave was examined against the acquittal recorded by the trial court. The Court noted that the complainant had not proved the alleged loan transaction with adequate particulars, including the absence of any dated record of advancement, security document, account books, or income-tax return. The defence version that the cheque was issued as security in connection with a different transaction was found probable on the evidence, and the trial court's view that the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted was held to be supported by the record. The acquittal was not found perverse or contrary to law.

Conclusion: No ground was made out to grant leave to appeal; the request for leave was rejected and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed at the threshold, as the Court found the defence version plausible and the trial court's appreciation of evidence sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal arising from a cheque dishonour complaint, leave will not be granted where the accused's defence is probable and the complainant's case does not sufficiently rebut the evidentiary doubt surrounding the transaction and the statutory presumption.

---