Cheque dishonour presumptions are rebuttable on probabilities, and concurrent acquittal stands absent perversity or manifest illegality.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the holder, but it remains rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rebut it through the complainant's own materials and surrounding circumstances, and the complainant must still establish a legally enforceable debt or liability. On the facts discussed, contradictions in the complainant's version, the absence of supporting financial material, and inconsistencies with income-tax returns created serious doubt about the alleged loan transaction and rebutted the presumption. Concurrent acquittal is ordinarily not disturbed unless perversity, manifest illegality, or miscarriage of justice is shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complainant succeeded in invoking and sustaining the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the accused rebutted the presumption by showing absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability; (ii) Whether the concurrent acquittal recorded by the courts below called for interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the complainant succeeded in invoking and sustaining the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the accused rebutted the presumption by showing absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: A cheque dishonour prosecution requires the statutory ingredients of presentation within validity, issuance of demand notice, and failure to pay within the prescribed period. Once execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the holder, including the presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of debt or liability. The presumption is rebuttable on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, and the accused may rely on the complainant's own materials and surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the complainant's version contained contradictions regarding the time and purpose of issuance of the cheque, the alleged loan transaction was not shown with supporting financial material, and the complainant's income-tax returns did not reflect the asserted advance. These features, taken together, created serious doubt about the existence of a legally recoverable debt and rebutted the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption stood rebutted and the complainant failed to establish the foundational liability; the finding was against the complainant and in favour of the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent acquittal recorded by the courts below called for interference in appeal.

Analysis: Interference with concurrent findings of acquittal is warranted only where perversity, manifest illegality, or grave miscarriage of justice is shown. The appellate court must be slow to disturb an acquittal where the view taken is supported by evidence and two views are reasonably possible. Here, both courts below had examined the evidence in detail and their conclusions were supported by the record. No perversity, omission of material evidence, or error of law was demonstrated to justify reversal of the acquittal.

Conclusion: No interference was called for with the concurrent acquittal; the finding was against the appellant and in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The appeal could not dislodge the acquittal, as the statutory presumption under the cheque dishonour law was successfully rebutted and the concurrent factual findings were not shown to be perverse.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the accused rebuts the statutory presumption on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, the complainant must still establish a legally enforceable debt, and concurrent acquittal will not be interfered with absent perversity or manifest injustice.

---