Cheque Dishonour Presumption Rebutted, acquittal sustained as legally enforceable debt remained unproved on the evidence.

In an appeal against acquittal arising from a cheque dishonour prosecution, interference is justified only if the trial court's view is perverse or no reasonable alternative view exists. In a Section 138 case, execution of the cheque raises a rebuttable presumption under Sections 118 and 139 in favour of the complainant, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities, including from the complainant's own evidence. On the facts, partial repayment and the record left the subsisting legally enforceable debt unproven, so the acquittal was a possible view and the appeal was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal recorded in a cheque dishonour prosecution required interference in appeal, and whether the complainant had established a legally enforceable debt while the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the trial court's view is perverse, based on misreading or omission of material evidence, or where no two reasonable views are possible. In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once execution of the cheque is shown, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 operates in favour of the complainant, but it remains rebuttable on a standard of preponderance of probabilities. The accused may rebut the presumption from the complainant's own materials and need not necessarily enter the witness box. On the facts, the record showed partial repayment of the loan and the evidence did not satisfactorily establish that the cheque amount represented the legally enforceable liability on the relevant date. The defence that the cheque was unsupported by the subsisting debt raised a probable defence and created reasonable doubt about the enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to dislodge the acquittal or prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque represented a legally enforceable debt; the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was found to be a possible and proper view on the evidence, and the appeal against acquittal was not entertained.

Ratio Decidendi: In an acquittal appeal arising from a cheque dishonour case, the appellate court will not interfere where the accused rebuts the Section 139 presumption on a preponderance of probabilities and the complainant fails to prove a subsisting legally enforceable debt.

---