Presumption under cheque dishonour law rebutted where debt was not proved and acquittal was left undisturbed.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that a statutory notice need not set out complete transaction details, and a cheque remains proved despite different inks or handwriting where the signature is admitted. It also accepted that a power of attorney holder may testify where authority is admitted and sufficient knowledge of the transaction is shown. However, ledger entries and the unexplained claim for 24% interest created serious doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, so the presumption under Section 139 was rebutted. In the absence of exceptional grounds, appellate interference with the acquittal was unwarranted, and the acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be reversed on the grounds that the statutory notice need not contain complete transaction details, the cheque was proved despite different inks, and the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The complaint was founded on a cheque said to have been issued towards business liability. The challenge to the complainant's power of attorney holder was rejected as the authority was admitted in the accused's examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and the witness's knowledge of the transaction was sufficiently shown. The absence of full transaction particulars in the statutory notice did not invalidate the prosecution. The mere fact that the cheque was filled in with different handwriting or ink did not defeat liability once the signature was admitted. However, the material on record, particularly the ledger extracts, created a serious doubt regarding the exact legally enforceable debt, especially in view of the unexplained addition of interest at 24% without proof of an agreement authorising such interest. In these circumstances, the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted and the complainant did not establish the actual debt with the requisite certainty. Appellate interference with an acquittal was also unwarranted in the absence of exceptional circumstances.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not liable to be disturbed and the prosecution under Section 138 failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal against acquittal was found to be devoid of merit and the accused's acquittal was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and once the accused raises a credible doubt as to the existence of the legally enforceable debt, the complainant must prove it; an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal unless exceptional circumstances are shown.

---