Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases can justify remand where evidence is unshaken and trial procedure is ignored.

In a cheque dishonour matter, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated for the cheque holder where the complainant's documents and testimony were not effectively challenged, and the accused did not specifically deny issuance of the cheques in Section 313 CrPC examination. The trial court's failure to apply Section 294 CrPC procedure for documents and to record findings on all framed points under Section 354 CrPC was treated as non-appreciation of evidence and ignorance of law. On that basis, the acquittal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh trial and decision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with on the ground of -appreciation of evidence, non-application of the statutory presumptions and failure to follow the procedure under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, warranting remand for fresh trial.

Analysis: The appeal arose from an acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution. The record showed that the complainant had filed the cheques and supporting documents in Court, the accused did not specifically deny issuance of the cheques in examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and there was no effective cross-examination to dislodge the complainant's assertion that the cheques were issued towards liability. In such circumstances, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheques unless rebutted by the defence. The Court further found that the trial court failed to follow the procedure contemplated by Section 294 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 regarding documents filed in Court, and also failed to render findings on all framed points as required by Section 354 of that Code. These defects were held to amount to non-appreciation of evidence and ignorance of law, resulting in miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was remanded for fresh trial and fresh decision; the appeal was allowed in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour case, where the complainant's evidence and filed documents remain unshaken, the accused does not specifically rebut issuance of the cheque, and the trial court ignores the statutory presumptions and mandatory procedural requirements, the acquittal is liable to be interfered with and the matter may be remanded for retrial to prevent miscarriage of justice.

---