Rebuttable cheque presumptions and probable defence defeated interference with acquittal in a Section 138 prosecution.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court reiterated that the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and may be displaced by a probable defence shown on a preponderance of probabilities, including through the complainant's own evidence and surrounding circumstances. It found that the complainant did not credibly prove the alleged loan transaction or financial capacity, while the defence version of misuse of a blank cheque remained probable. Applying the limited scope of interference in appeals against acquittal, the court held the trial view was reasonable and declined leave to appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 should be granted where the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions and the trial court's view was a reasonable one.

Analysis: The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 are rebuttable, and the accused can discharge the burden by raising a probable defence on the basis of the complainant's own evidence and surrounding circumstances. The standard for rebuttal is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. On the evidence, the complainant failed to establish the alleged loan transaction and financial capacity with sufficient credibility, while the defence version that the cheque was misused after being issued blank in another financial transaction remained probable. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the judgment is perverse or unreasonable, and a mere possible alternative view is not enough.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption, and the acquittal was based on a reasonable view of the evidence; leave to appeal was therefore declined.

---