Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of debt and liability before a cheque dishonour conviction can stand.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt and the underlying loan transaction before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate. Here, the cheque bore the respondent's signature, but the loan date was not stated, no independent document supported the alleged advance, the complainant's financial capacity was unproved, and the cash transaction was found inconsistent with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The defence version was sufficiently probable to rebut the presumption, so the liability was not established. The appellate court also held that interference with acquittal is justified only where the trial view is perverse or ignores material evidence; no such ground was shown, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the complainant established the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the loan transaction underlying the cheque so as to attract the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) whether the acquittal called for interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Issue (i): whether the complainant established the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the loan transaction underlying the cheque so as to attract the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The cheque was proved to bear the respondent's signature, but the prosecution case remained infirm on the basic transaction itself. The complaint did not state the date of the alleged loan and no independent document supported advancement of Rs. 1,30,000/-. The evidence also showed inconsistency as to whether the amount was borrowed personally or by the partnership firm. The Court further held that the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act do not dispense with proof of the foundational facts of debt or liability. The complainant's financial capacity was also found unproved, and the alleged cash transaction of more than Rs. 20,000/- was treated as inconsistent with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The defence evidence was found sufficient to probabilise the respondent's case.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove the loan transaction and legally recoverable liability; the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted.

Issue (ii): whether the acquittal called for interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is warranted only when the judgment is perverse, contrary to the evidence, or rendered after ignoring material evidence. On a review of the record, the Court found that the trial court had properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and that no material omission or perversity was shown.

Conclusion: No ground for appellate interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was left undisturbed because the prosecution failed to establish the debt and the trial court's view was a plausible one on the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first establish the foundational facts of debt or liability and financial capacity, and the appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court's view is perverse or ignores material evidence.

---