Acquittal in cheque dishonour case upheld where legally enforceable debt was not proved and presumptions were rebutted.

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, interference is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse, manifestly illegal, or unsupported by the record; where two reasonable views exist, the one favouring acquittal prevails. The cheque was not proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt because the loan documents were inconsistent, the complainant could not explain the increase from the admitted loan amount to the cheque amount, and no cogent material supported any additional liability. The accused raised a probable defence and rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 on a preponderance of probabilities, so the prosecution failed to establish the ingredients of Section 138 beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in appeal, and whether the cheque was proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable debt so as to attract the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is warranted only where the trial court's view is perverse, manifestly illegal, or unsupported by the record. The presumption of innocence stands strengthened after acquittal, and if two reasonable views are possible, the one favouring acquittal must prevail. On the facts, the evidence did not satisfactorily establish that the cheque amount represented a legally enforceable liability. The loan documentation contained inconsistencies, the complainant failed to explain the escalation from the admitted loan amount to the cheque amount, and no cogent material supported the alleged additional dues. The accused therefore raised a probable defence sufficient to rebut the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Act on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not suffer from perversity or legal infirmity, and the prosecution failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 beyond reasonable doubt. Interference was unwarranted.

---