Cheques and statutory presumptions fail where the transaction itself appears doubtful and the complainant's version lacks credibility.

In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, mere admission of the accused's signature on the cheque did not by itself establish a genuine transaction or automatically trigger the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The surrounding circumstances, including doubtful repayment terms, inconsistencies about the alleged purpose of the loan, and discrepancies in the cheque and supporting agreement, undermined the complainant's version. The court held that the complainant had not proved a probable and trustworthy case, and an appellate court would not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding was perverse or unsupported by evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal, and whether the complainant had proved a genuine transaction so as to attract the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of that Act.

Analysis: The accused admitted her signature on the cheque, but the mere admission of signature did not by itself establish the genuineness of the transaction or automatically activate the statutory presumptions in favour of the complainant. The surrounding circumstances created doubt about the alleged loan transaction, including the implausible repayment terms, the inconsistency regarding the educational purpose of the loan, and discrepancies apparent on the cheque and the supporting agreement. The supporting document was found to be doubtful on its face, and the complainant's version was not found to be convincing or trustworthy. In an appeal against acquittal, interference was not warranted unless the judgment was shown to be perverse or unsupported by the evidence.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to establish a genuine and probable case, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not attracted in his favour on the facts, and the acquittal did not call for interference. The appeal was rightly dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, statutory presumptions arise only when the execution and genuineness of the instrument in a real transaction are shown; mere admission of signature is insufficient where the surrounding circumstances render the transaction doubtful.

---