Cheque bounce acquittal under NI Act stands when presumptions are rebutted and debt is not proved

In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is justified only if the acquittal is perverse, having regard to the double presumption of innocence. Where the accused disputes execution of the cheque and raises a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 stand rebutted, and the complainant must independently prove a legally enforceable debt or liability. On the evidence, the accused consistently disputed the signatures and supported that defence with expert evidence, while the complainant failed to prove the loan details or the existence of liability on the cheque date. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the order of acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference in appeal.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, the appellate court may reappreciate the evidence, but it must keep in view the double presumption of innocence in favour of the accused and interfere only when the appreciation of evidence is perverse. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once execution of the cheque is disputed and the accused raises a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 stand rebutted and the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability as a matter of fact. On the evidence, the accused had consistently disputed the signatures and relied upon expert evidence, while the complainant failed to prove the manner, date, source, or documentary basis of the alleged loan and failed to establish the debt/liability on the date of the cheques.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not suffer from perversity and no interference was called for; the leave petition was liable to be dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In an appeal against acquittal arising from a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the accused rebuts the statutory presumptions by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, the complainant must independently prove the legally enforceable debt or liability, and interference with acquittal is unwarranted absent perversity.

---