Rebuttable presumption in cheque dishonour cases defeated where debt is unproved and defence raises a probable explanation.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 remained rebuttable and was displaced on a preponderance of probabilities where the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. The court found the loan evidence deficient because no contemporaneous financial records, receipts, or reliable particulars of disbursement were produced, while the defence offered a probable explanation that the cheque was blank and signed. Applying the limited appellate standard in acquittal matters, interference was declined because the trial court's view was plausible and not perverse. The acquittal was therefore upheld and the criminal appeal dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference on the ground that the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted and the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 requires proof that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and that the statutory demand requirements were satisfied. Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder once the foundational facts are shown, but the presumption can be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's evidence on the alleged loan was found deficient, as no contemporaneous financial records, receipts, or reliable particulars of disbursement were produced, while the defence raised a probable explanation regarding the blank signed cheque and created doubt about the existence of the transaction. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only where the trial court's view is perverse, illegal, or a misreading of evidence.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld because the finding that a legally enforceable debt was not proved was a plausible view and the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Final Conclusion: The criminal appeal was dismissed and the order of acquittal was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 139 is rebuttable, and an appellate court will not interfere with an acquittal if the accused has raised a probable defence and the complainant has failed to prove the legally enforceable debt.

---