Acquittal appeal interference limited absent perversity, with doubtful cheque liability and unproved authorisation defeating leave to appeal.

Leave to appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint was declined because no perversity, misreading of evidence, or material error in the trial court's appreciation of evidence was shown. The trial court had found that the complainant failed to prove proper authorisation of the person pursuing the case, that supporting documents were not duly proved, and that no account statement or comparable reliable material established the alleged liability. The cheque liability was also viewed as doubtful in light of the defence that the vehicle had been repossessed and the cheque was only a security instrument. In an acquittal appeal, interference is warranted only on a clear legal or evidentiary defect, which was absent here.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted in the absence of any perversity, misreading of evidence, or error in the trial court's appreciation of the evidence.

Analysis: The record showed that the trial court acquitted the accused after finding that the complainant had not proved that the case was pursued by a duly authorised person, that crucial supporting documents were not duly proved after the accused entered appearance, and that no account statement or other reliable material established the alleged outstanding liability. The cheque liability was also considered doubtful in view of the defence that the vehicle had been repossessed and that the cheque was only a security instrument. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where the judgment is perverse, palpably erroneous, or based on misreading of evidence, especially because the presumption of innocence stands reinforced by acquittal.

Conclusion: No ground for interference with the acquittal was made out; leave to appeal was rightly declined.

---