Cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act were not rebutted; conviction under Section 138 followed after acquittal was set aside.

Admission of the drawer's cheque signature triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of liability. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, as mere denial under Section 313 CrPC and suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient. Dishonour for insufficient funds and service of demand notice were proved, so the ingredients of Section 138 stood established. In appeal against acquittal, interference was justified because the trial court adopted an unsustainable view and ignored settled principles. The acquittal was set aside and conviction under Section 138 followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether interference with the acquittal was warranted in the appeal; (ii) whether the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 were proved.

Issue (i): whether interference with the acquittal was warranted in the appeal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappraise the evidence, but it must give due weight to the presumption of innocence reinforced by the trial court's acquittal. Interference is justified where the trial court's view is not a possible view or is perverse.

Conclusion: Interference was warranted because the trial court's approach ignored the governing principles and adopted an unsustainable view.

Issue (ii): whether the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 were proved.

Analysis: Once the cheque and signatures were admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a debt or liability. The accused did not lead defence evidence, and mere denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was insufficient. The cross-examination and suggestions did not rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The cheque was proved to have been dishonoured for insufficient funds, and service of demand notice was established. The statutory ingredients of Section 138 were therefore satisfied.

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

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, with the matter posted for hearing on sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of the drawer's signature on a cheque triggers the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and those presumptions can be displaced only by a probable defence proved on the preponderance of probabilities; in an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court ignores these settled principles and reaches a perverse view.

---