Cheque dishonour presumptions and appellate interference with acquittal: proof of execution shifts the burden, and conviction may follow.

In cheque dishonour prosecutions, an appellate court may reappreciate evidence against acquittal, but it should interfere only when the trial court's view is patently erroneous or unsustainable. Once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, a rebuttable presumption arises under the Negotiable Instruments Act that a legally enforceable debt exists, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities, including by relying on the complainant's own materials. On the stated facts, the defence led no evidence, the presumption was not rebutted, and the ingredients of the offence were treated as proved, leading to reversal of acquittal and conviction.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal in the cheque dishonour prosecution. (ii) Whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the cheque dishonour complaint was proved.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court should interfere with the acquittal in the cheque dishonour prosecution.

Analysis: An appellate court has full power to review and reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, but it must bear in mind the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal. Interference is justified where the trial court's appreciation is patently erroneous or its conclusions are demonstrably unsustainable, and where the evidence does not support two equally reasonable views in favour of acquittal.

Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the cheque dishonour complaint was proved.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the presumption under Section 139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, and the accused may rely on the complainant's own materials. On the facts, the cheque issuance was not effectively denied, no defence evidence was led, and the trial court's insistence on independent proof of part payment and notice service was inconsistent with the statutory presumptions and settled precedent. The ingredients of the offence under Section 138 were therefore established.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the complaint succeeded.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted for the cheque dishonour offence, and the appeal was allowed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission or proof of cheque execution attracts a rebuttable presumption of a legally enforceable debt under Section 139, rebuttable only on a preponderance of probabilities, and an appellate court may reverse an acquittal where the trial court's view is unsustainable on the evidence.

---