Presumption under Section 139 rebutted where complainant failed to prove cheque transaction and acquittal stood undisturbed.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence, given the accused's double presumption of innocence. Applying that standard, the court found the complainant had not proved execution and delivery of the cheque with convincing evidence, and material discrepancies weakened the version of borrowal. The supporting witnesses did not reliably establish the transaction, including because presence at the relevant time was not consistently shown and one witness was interested. The accused raised a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, rebutting the Section 139 presumption, so the acquittal was not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in appeal, and whether the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted on the evidence.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the accused enjoys a double presumption of innocence. The appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is justified only where the trial court's view is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence on record. On the facts, the complainant failed to establish execution and delivery of the cheque with convincing evidence. Material discrepancies appeared in the complainant's version regarding the date of borrowal, while the defence version was supported by surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence. The testimony of the additional witnesses did not reliably prove the transaction, as their presence at the relevant time was not consistently established and one of them was an interested witness. The accused therefore brought on record a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference and the presumption under Section 139 was held to have been rebutted.

---