Appellate interference with acquittal was refused where proof of loan payment and source of funds remained unestablished.

Leave to appeal against acquittal in a Section 138 NI Act complaint was declined because the complainant failed to prove actual payment of the alleged loan, the source of funds, and the date of transaction with certainty. The explanation that the money came from the complainant's father was unsupported because he was not examined. The trial court's judgment was detailed and reasoned, and the acquittal was not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where guilt is irresistible; a merely possible alternative view does not warrant reversal.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act should be granted.

Analysis: The complaint failed to establish actual payment of the alleged loan amount, the source of funds was not proved, the date of the alleged transaction was not shown with certainty, and the explanation that the amount came from the complainant's father was unsupported because the father was not examined. The trial court's judgment was detailed and reasoned, and the finding of acquittal was neither perverse nor contrary to the record. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted unless the conclusion of guilt is irresistible, and a mere possible alternate view is insufficient.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was rightly declined and the acquittal was sustained in favour of the accused.

---