Limited interference with acquittal in cheque dishonour cases where the trial court's view is reasonable and presumptions are rebutted.

Interference with an acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution is limited to cases where the trial court's view is perverse or not a possible view. On the evidence, the complainant could not identify the date, month or year of the alleged loan, and a direct transaction with the accused remained doubtful despite dealings with her family members. The trial court had reappreciated the evidence, applied the statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law, and found it rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities. No patent illegality, perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown, so leave to appeal was rejected and the acquittal stood.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution was warranted on the facts and evidence.

Analysis: The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is limited to cases where the trial court's view is not a possible view or is perverse. The evidence showed that the complainant could not specify the date, month, or year of the alleged loan, and the existence of a direct transaction with the accused remained doubtful despite admitted financial dealings with her family members. The trial court had reappreciated the material, applied the statutory presumptions under the cheque dishonour law, and found that the accused had rebutted them on a reasonable assessment of the evidence. No patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice was shown.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal against acquittal was not justified and was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal remained undisturbed, and the connected appeal did not survive.

Ratio Decidendi: Interference with an acquittal is not warranted where the trial court's assessment is a possible and reasonable view of the evidence and the accused has successfully rebutted the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities.

---