Cheque dishonour presumptions can be rebutted by questioning financial capacity, and acquittal stands where the trial view is possible.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission of the cheque and signature raised the statutory presumption under Section 139 in favour of the complainant, but that presumption was rebuttable by a probable defence. The accused succeeded by challenging the complainant's financial capacity to advance the alleged loan, and the complainant failed to explain the source of funds or produce material showing possession of the amount. The court held that the defence needed only to satisfy the standard of preponderance of probability. As the trial court's view was a possible view on the evidence, interference with the acquittal was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal, and whether the complainant had established the financial capacity to advance the alleged loan so as to sustain the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The cheque and signature being admitted, the initial presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. However, the accused challenged the complainant's financial capacity to advance the alleged loan. The complainant, stated to be a housewife, did not explain the source of funds or produce material to show possession of the alleged amount. The defence was required to be established only on the standard of preponderance of probability, and a probable defence arising from the cross-examination was sufficient to displace the presumption. On the evidence, the view taken by the trial court was held to be a possible view, and interference with an acquittal was not warranted when two views were possible.

Conclusion: The acquittal was not found to be perverse or arbitrary, the presumption stood rebutted on the issue of financial capacity, and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can be rebutted by a probable defence questioning the complainant's financial capacity, and an appellate court will not interfere where the trial court's view is a possible one.

---