Cheque dishonour presumptions are rebuttable on probabilities, and a plausible acquittal will not be disturbed on appeal.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 were held rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and the accused successfully raised a probable defence from the complainant's own materials, including the seizure list, balance-sheet materials, and surrounding circumstances, creating doubt about issuance of the cheques and the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The prosecution therefore failed on liability. On appeal against acquittal, the court reiterated that interference is unwarranted where the trial court's view is plausible and no infirmity or illegality is shown. The acquittal was accordingly left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a prosecution under Section 138 of that Act. (ii) Whether the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in a prosecution under Section 138 of that Act.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 operate in favour of the holder of the cheque, but they are rebuttable on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rely upon the complainant's own materials to raise a probable defence. On the evidence, the seizure list, the balance-sheet materials, and the surrounding circumstances created a reasonable doubt about issuance of the cheques in the ordinary course and about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The version of clandestine share transactions and the alleged liability was found not to be sufficiently supported by the record.

Conclusion: The statutory presumption stood rebutted and the prosecution case failed on the issue of legally enforceable debt and liability.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court should interfere with the order of acquittal in the facts of the case.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted where two views are possible and the view taken by the trial court is a plausible one. The trial court had considered the materials and applied the correct legal standard. Since its conclusions were within the permissible range of appreciation of evidence, no infirmity or illegality justified reversal.

Conclusion: The order of acquittal was not liable to be disturbed.

Final Conclusion: The appeals failed because the accused had successfully rebutted the cheque dishonour presumption and the acquittal did not call for appellate interference.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, and an acquittal will not be interfered with in appeal where the trial court's view is a plausible one.

---