Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law is not interfered with on appeal absent perversity or no evidence.

In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the statutory presumption arises only where foundational facts are proved and the cheque is shown to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Concurrent findings of the First Appellate Court and the High Court held that no reliable material proved any loan or financial assistance transaction, the alleged debt did not appear in the complainant's accounts, and the defence offered a plausible alternative explanation for the cheques and funds. On Article 136 review, interference was unwarranted because those findings were neither perverse nor unsupported by evidence. The acquittal was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in the complaint cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in appeal, and whether the findings that no legally enforceable debt or liability had been proved and that the statutory presumption stood rebutted were perverse or based on no evidence.

Analysis: The complaint succeeded only if the foundational facts for invoking the statutory presumption were established and the cheque amounts were shown to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The evidence was examined by the First Appellate Court and the High Court, both of which found that no reliable material proved any loan or financial assistance transaction, that the alleged debt did not appear in the complainant's accounts, and that the defence put forward a plausible alternative explanation for the cheques and funds. In interference under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with concurrent findings of acquittal, the decisive test was whether those findings were perverse or unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The findings of acquittal were neither perverse nor based on no evidence. The statutory presumption stood rebutted and no ground for interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the acquittal failed, and the petitions were dismissed, leaving the respondents' acquittal undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, concurrent findings that no legally enforceable debt is proved and that the accused has rebutted the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probabilities will not be interfered with in appeal absent perversity or absence of evidence.

---