Section 138 cheque dishonour: probable defence and lack of loan proof justified acquittal, with no appellate interference.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque and signature being undisputed raised the presumption under Section 139 in favour of the complainant. The accused, however, rebutted that presumption by setting up a probable defence and by pointing to the absence of a specific lending date, lack of documentary proof of the alleged loan, and failure to establish the complainant's financial capacity to advance the sum. The complainant did not prove a legally enforceable debt or the means to lend, so the acquittal was held justified and no interference was called for in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were not disputed, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. The accused rebutted that presumption by setting up a probable defence and by pointing to circumstances creating doubt about the complainant's version, including the absence of any specific date of lending, the lack of documentary proof of the alleged loan, and the complainant's failure to establish the financial capacity to advance such a large amount. The complainant's evidence did not satisfactorily show that he had the means to lend the amount or that the cheque had been issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was held to be justified and no interference was called for; the appeal failed.

Final Conclusion: The conviction sought by the complainant was declined, and the trial court's acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the accused raises a probable defence, the complainant must still establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan.

---