Cheque dishonour proof requires personal knowledge and supporting accounts before presumption of liability can sustain prosecution.

A cheque dishonour prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of a legally enforceable debt through admissible evidence of the loan transaction, the complainant's financial capacity, and supporting records. A power of attorney holder may depose, but the evidence is effective only where the witness has personal knowledge of the transaction or has seen it occur. Here, the complainant's witness did not clearly establish such knowledge and the supporting business records were not produced, so the evidentiary basis for the liability was found insufficient. The acquittal was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal with opportunity for both sides to adduce evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference and remand for fresh consideration because the complainant had not adequately proved the loan transaction, the capacity to advance the amount, and the personal knowledge of the power of attorney holder.

Analysis: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the foundational facts of the transaction must be established through admissible evidence. A power of attorney holder may represent the complainant and depose, but his evidence is useful only if he has witnessed the transaction or possesses sufficient personal knowledge of it. The complainant's books of account, ledger entries, and supporting records also become material where the alleged loan transaction and financial capacity are in issue. On the record before the trial court, the complainant's witness had not clearly shown knowledge of the transaction, the supporting business records were not produced, and the evidence was found insufficient to conclusively determine whether the cheque represented a legally recoverable liability.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh disposal with opportunity to the complainant to adduce proper evidence and to the accused to lead rebuttal evidence. The appeal was allowed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution was not finally decided on merits at the appellate stage, and the case was sent back for a fresh trial on proper evidentiary proof of the alleged debt and liability.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, a complainant relying on a power of attorney holder must prove the transaction through a witness with personal knowledge and supporting accounts or other corroborative evidence, because the statutory presumption does not dispense with proof of the legally enforceable debt where the foundational facts remain disputed.

---