Cheque dishonour presumptions and appeal maintainability under CrPC upheld; acquittal set aside and conviction restored.

An appeal under Section 378(4) CrPC was held maintainable against an acquittal in a complaint case, and revision was barred where an appeal lay under Section 401(4). On the cheque dishonour issue, the cheque and signature were admitted, notice was treated as served, and the accused gave no cogent rebuttal evidence. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act therefore operated for the complainant, and the First Appellate Court's reliance on absence of loan documents and Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act was found insufficient. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction under Section 138 was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies against an order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court in a complaint case, or whether the remedy is only revision. (ii) Whether the First Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused despite the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether an appeal under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 lies against an order of acquittal passed by the First Appellate Court in a complaint case, or whether the remedy is only revision.

Analysis: Section 378(4) permits the complainant to seek special leave and present an appeal against an order of acquittal in a case instituted upon complaint. Section 401(4) bars revision where an appeal lies, and the revisional jurisdiction cannot be used to convert acquittal into conviction. The appellate structure under Sections 372 and 386 also supports the availability of the appellate remedy in the present context.

Conclusion: The appeal was maintainable, and the objection that only revision lay was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the First Appellate Court erred in acquitting the accused despite the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were not disputed, notice was treated as served on the admitted addresses, and the accused did not give any reply or lodge any complaint about alleged misuse or theft. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it by cogent evidence. The reasons relied on by the First Appellate Court, including absence of documentary proof of loan and reliance on Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were held insufficient to displace the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The acquittal was erroneous and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored.

Final Conclusion: The complainant succeeded in establishing the maintainability of the appeal and the cheque dishonour liability, resulting in restoration of the trial court conviction and sentence as modified by the High Court.

Ratio Decidendi: In a complaint case under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder and can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal evidence; where an appeal lies under Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, revision is barred by Section 401(4).

---