Cheque dishonour presumption rebutted where evidence failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose in favour of the complainant, but it was rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The accused rebutted the presumption through cross-examination, a prior notice, and evidence that the cheque did not bear the accused's signature. The complainant then failed to prove payment of the alleged amount or any legally enforceable liability beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the trial court's view was found to be a possible view, so the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference.

Analysis: The complainant was entitled to the initial presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. That presumption was rebuttable on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. The accused raised a probable defence through cross-examination and the contemporaneous notice issued before the cheque date. The bank witness also stated that the cheque did not bear the accused's signature. The complainant failed to produce cogent material to prove payment of Rs. 35,000/- or the existence of an enforceable liability beyond reasonable doubt. In appeal against acquittal, the view taken by the trial court was a possible view and not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the foundational facts for conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The acquittal was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the acquittal of the accused for the cheque dishonour offence remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the accused raises a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption, the complainant must prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt; an acquittal based on a possible view will not be interfered with in appeal.

---