Cheque dishonour presumption rebutted where complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt and supporting particulars.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt with sufficient particulars or supporting material. Although presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initially favoured the cheque holder, they were treated as rebutted by cross-examination and the complainant's own admissions. The complaint and affidavit did not specify the dates, principal amount, or basis for interest, and no ledger, account, pronote, or other corroborative document was produced. The defence version was found more probable, so special leave to appeal against acquittal was not made out. The issue under the Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act was not examined on merits.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant made out a case for grant of special leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution by proving a legally enforceable debt and sufficient material particulars.

Analysis: The complaint, legal notice, and affidavit stated that the cheque represented a friendly loan carrying interest, but the complainant did not specify the dates, particulars, principal amount, or the basis of interest calculation. Although presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the holder of the cheque, those presumptions were treated as rebutted through the complainant's cross-examination and his own admissions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The complainant admitted that the alleged advances were made on various dates over a long period, yet no account, ledger, statement, pronote, or other supporting document was produced. The Court found the complainant's version unsupported and the defence version more probable. The question of violation of the Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act 1938 was not examined on merits, as the threshold proof of a legally enforceable debt itself was found wanting.

Conclusion: The application for special leave to appeal was not made out and was dismissed.

---