Appeal against acquittal in cheque dishonour cases: interference requires perversity or an unsustainable trial court view.

In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence but must give due weight to the strengthened presumption of innocence arising from acquittal. Interference is warranted only if the trial court's view is perverse, wholly unsustainable, or no reasonable view on the evidence supports the acquittal. On the record, the evidence was insufficient to dislodge the trial court's assessment, and the reasons for acquittal were found just and proper. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a cheque dishonour prosecution warranted interference in an appeal against acquittal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but it must give due weight to the strengthened presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal. Interference is justified only when the trial court's view is perverse, wholly unsustainable, or where no reasonable view on the evidence supports the acquittal. The evidence on record was found insufficient to dislodge the trial court's assessment, and the reasons recorded for acquittal were held to be just and proper.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not interfered with and the appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court should not disturb the trial court's view unless the acquittal is perverse or manifestly unsustainable, and if two views are possible, the one favourable to the accused must prevail.

---