Probable defence in cheque dishonour case justified refusal to interfere with acquittal after trial court's assessment.

Special leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution was declined because the accused had raised a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security in a chit transaction. The Madras HC noted that the record included documentary evidence and oral testimony supporting the defence, while the complainant failed to establish a prima facie basis for reversing the trial court's view. Applying the settled standard for interference with an acquittal, the Court held that interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a wrong appreciation of law and facts. No interference with the acquittal was called for.

---

---

Issues: Whether special leave to appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be granted against the acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on an alleged loan and dishonoured cheque, but the trial court had acquitted the accused after accepting the defence that the cheque was issued as security in a chit transaction. The material on record showed that the complainant and the accused were associated with chit transactions, and the defence version was supported by documentary evidence and oral testimony. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the trial court's view is perverse, arbitrary, or based on a wrong appreciation of law and facts. The Court found that the accused had raised a probable defence and that the complainant had not established a prima facie case for reversal of the acquittal.

Conclusion: Special leave to appeal was not granted and no interference was called for with the acquittal.

---