Cheque dishonour presumption rebutted where no debt was proved and acquittal against conviction was left undisturbed.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the cheque holder but remain rebuttable. The accused rebutted them by asserting that signed blank cheques were taken in connection with a proposed loan and later misused, while the complainant led no evidence of the underlying transaction or of any debt or legally enforceable liability. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only if the lower court's view is perverse or unreasonable. The presumption was rebutted, the foundational liability was not proved, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant had proved that the cheques were issued in discharge of a debt or legally enforceable liability, and whether the acquittal recorded by the appellate court called for interference in appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the holder of a cheque, but it is rebuttable. In the present case, the accused had specifically set up the defence, both in reply to the notice of dishonour and in their statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, that the signed blank cheques had been taken by the bank field officer in connection with a proposed loan and were later misused. The complainant led no evidence to explain the underlying transaction or to establish that the cheques had in fact been issued towards a debt or liability. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only when the view taken below is perverse or unreasonable, which was not shown here.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted, the complainant failed to prove the foundational debt or liability, and the acquittal did not warrant interference. The appeal was correctly dismissed.

---