Rebuttal of cheque presumptions defeats interference with acquittal in a dishonour prosecution when evidence supports the defence version.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to prove execution and issuance of the cheque to activate the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. The accused rebutted those presumptions by raising a consistent defence that the cheque was issued as security for a different transaction, supported by cross-examination, oral evidence, and documents, and discharged the burden on a preponderance of probabilities. As the defence made the complainant's version improbable and two views were possible on the record, interference with the acquittal was unwarranted because an appellate court acts only where the acquittal is perverse or unsupported by evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in appeal, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The complainant had to establish execution and issuance of the cheque so that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 could operate. The accused consistently disputed the alleged loan transaction and set up a specific defence that the cheque was issued as security in connection with a different transaction. The defence version was supported by cross-examination, oral evidence, and documentary material, and the Court found that the accused had discharged the burden on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. Once the defence evidence made the complainant's version improbable, the statutory presumptions stood rebutted. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the judgment is perverse or compelling reasons exist, and two views are possible on the material in this case.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed and the appeal against acquittal failed.

Final Conclusion: The criminal appeal did not succeed, and the order of acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once the accused rebuts the statutory presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the finding is perverse or unsupported by evidence.

---