Cheque dishonour presumptions rebutted by probable defence; appellate court declined to disturb the acquittal.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admitted execution of the cheque and signature triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 in favour of the complainant, but the accused could rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by showing a probable defence. The evidence of a competing transaction, supporting documents, and unexplained suspicious circumstances created doubt about the alleged consideration and the underlying debt. Once that probable defence was raised, the burden shifted back to the complainant to prove the legally enforceable liability, which he failed to do. In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence was reinforced, and the HC found no basis to interfere with the trial court's plausible view, so the acquittal was confirmed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant established grounds to interfere with the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the cheque and signature.

Analysis: The execution of the cheque and the signature were admitted, so the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. The accused, however, was required only to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by raising a probable defence, and he could rely on the evidence adduced by the complainant as well as his own materials. The evidence showed a competing transaction involving the complainant's wife, documentary material supporting the accused's version, and circumstances creating doubt as to the alleged consideration. The complainant failed to satisfactorily explain those suspicious circumstances or to prove the underlying debt as a matter of fact after the presumption was displaced. In an appeal against acquittal, the presumption of innocence stood reinforced and interference was unwarranted where the trial court's view was plausible.

Conclusion: The accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions, and the acquittal was not liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 failed, and the acquittal of the accused stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the accused raises a probable defence showing a reasonable possibility that consideration or legally enforceable liability did not exist, the burden shifts back to the complainant, and an appellate court should not disturb a plausible acquittal.

---