Section 138 cheque dishonour prosecution requires proof of enforceable debt, and statutory presumptions may be rebutted on probabilities.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, along with presentation, dishonour, notice, and non-payment; the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remain rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The court also held that where the remand was open, the trial court could reappreciate the evidence on all ingredients necessary for conviction or acquittal and did not exceed its jurisdiction by doing so. On the materials discussed, the nexus between the cheque and the accused's liability was not established, the presumptions were rebutted, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the trial court exceeded the scope of the remand while reappreciating the evidence and recording acquittal. (ii) Whether the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved and the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 stood rebutted.

Issue (i): Whether the trial court exceeded the scope of the remand while reappreciating the evidence and recording acquittal.

Analysis: The remand was treated as an open remand for allowing further evidence on the question of proprietorship, and the trial court was required to decide all matters necessary for adjudicating the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. In that situation, the court was not confined to the limited issue alone and was competent to assess the evidence on the full set of ingredients required for conviction or acquittal.

Conclusion: The trial court did not exceed its jurisdiction by reappreciating the evidence and recording acquittal.

Issue (ii): Whether the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved and the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 stood rebutted.

Analysis: The complainant had to establish issuance of the cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, presentation, dishonour, service of notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 were rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. On the materials relied upon, the cheque was traced to a different source, the alleged nexus between the entities was not proved, and the accused adduced evidence showing that the cheque had been misused. The evidence was insufficient to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability of the accused.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the offence under Section 138 was not proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld because the complainant failed to prove the foundational liability required for conviction under Section 138, and no interference with the trial court's decision was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt, while the accused may rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 on a preponderance of probabilities.

---