Cheque dishonour acquittal sustained where probable defence rebutted statutory presumption of debt or liability

Leave to appeal against acquittal in a cheque dishonour prosecution was declined because the accused had raised a plausible defence rebutting the Section 139 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. Admission of issuance and signatures on the cheque triggered the statutory presumption of debt or liability, but the accused could rely on the complainant's own material, cross-examination, and Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement to displace it. The Court held that the defence of issuance for property investment, together with missing loan documentation, contradictions in the complainant's case, and supporting bank evidence, was sufficient to sustain the acquittal and no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether leave to appeal against acquittal in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted where the accused admitted issuance and signatures on the cheque but set up a probable defence disputing the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only for very substantial and compelling reasons, bearing in mind the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of execution of the cheque raises a rebuttable presumption under Section 139 that it was issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The accused need only rebut that presumption on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and may do so from the complainant's own material, cross-examination, and statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The Court found that the defence that the cheque was issued for property investment, coupled with the absence of reliable proof of the alleged loan, missing supporting documents, contradictions in the complainant's version, and the bank witness's evidence, constituted a plausible defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference and leave to appeal was not made out.

---