Cheque dishonour prosecution fails without proof of debt and issuance; acquittal upheld where a probable defence was established.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the foundational facts for invoking the statutory presumptions must first be proved, including cheque issuance, presentation within validity, dishonour, timely notice, and non-payment within the statutory period. The complainant failed to independently prove issuance of the cheques or the existence of a legally enforceable debt, as the cheque signature and issuance were not admitted and the alleged friendly loan remained unproved. The accused raised a probable defence that the cheques were lost with other documents and a police complaint had been lodged. Leave to appeal against acquittal was therefore not warranted, and the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be granted.

Analysis: The ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 require proof of a cheque issued towards an existing debt or liability, presentation within validity, dishonour, timely notice, and failure to pay within the statutory period. The presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise only after the foundational facts are shown. On the facts, the cheque issuance and signature were not admitted, the petitioner did not independently prove the issuance of the cheques or the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the alleged friendly loan and supporting circumstances remained unproved. The respondent, on the other hand, raised a probable defence and consistently maintained that the cheques were lost along with other documents and that a police complaint had been lodged.

Conclusion: Leave to appeal was not warranted, and the acquittal was upheld.

---