Cheque dishonour acquittal upheld where security cheque defence rebutted statutory presumptions and debt was not proved.

In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the court applied the limited scope of interference and the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal, holding that reversal is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse or manifestly illegal. On the merits, the accused successfully raised a probable defence that the cheque had been issued as security, thereby rebutting the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant then failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability, so the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal, and whether the cheque was proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Analysis: The limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal was applied, bearing in mind the strengthened presumption of innocence following acquittal and the rule that two reasonable views should not lead to reversal unless the trial court's view is perverse or manifestly illegal. On the merits of the cheque dishonour prosecution, the Court examined the statutory requirement that the cheque must be issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or other liability. It accepted the trial court's appreciation of evidence that the defence had raised a probable version showing that the cheque was issued for security purposes, thereby rebutting the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant thereafter failed to establish the debt as legally enforceable beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not shown to be perverse or unsustainable, and the prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not proved.

---