Cheque dishonour prosecution failed as contradictions rebutted presumptions and the acquittal was not disturbed on appeal.

Material contradictions in the complainant's evidence on the loan, cheque issuance and supporting documents created serious doubt about the prosecution version under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The inconsistencies, including the unexplained differences in the cheque particulars, displaced the statutory presumptions and prevented proof of a legally enforceable debt or the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the HC held that interference is justified only where the trial view is unreasonable or perverse; because the acquittal was based on a plausible assessment of the evidence, it was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant proved the cheque transaction, the underlying legally enforceable debt, and the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether the order of acquittal called for interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant proved the cheque transaction, the underlying legally enforceable debt, and the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint, proof affidavit, legal notice, and cross-examination contained material inconsistencies regarding the date of borrowal, the date of issuance of the cheque, and the manner in which the alleged loan was advanced. The complainant did not present a consistent version as to whether the cheque was issued after repeated demands or whether it was a post-dated cheque issued on a specified date. The inconsistencies, together with the trial court's finding regarding the difference in ink used for the signature and the other particulars, created a serious doubt about the prosecution version. In these circumstances, the statutory presumptions stood effectively displaced by the improbabilities and contradictions in the complainant's own evidence.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to prove the case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): Whether the order of acquittal called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the acquittal is shown to be unreasonable or perverse. Where two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must prevail. Since the trial court's view was based on contradictions in the prosecution case and the complainant had not established the charge beyond reasonable doubt, there was no ground to disturb the acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not require interference.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt, and the appellate challenge to the acquittal was rejected, leaving the acquittal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal arising under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, material contradictions in the complainant's own evidence and surrounding documents can rebut the statutory presumptions and entitle the accused to the benefit of doubt, and a plausible acquittal view should not be disturbed.

---