Acquittal upheld where complainant failed to prove debt matching the cheque amount under Section 138.

The Appellant (original complainant) alleged that the Respondent-accused borrowed money and issued a cheque for ₹90,000 to repay the debt.

Upon presentation, the cheque was dishonored due to "insufficient funds".

The trial court (Magistrate, Surat) convicted the Respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on 27.09.2011.

On appeal, the Additional Sessions Judge, Surat, reversed this decision and acquitted the Respondent on 31.07.2013.

The Appellant challenged this acquittal before the High Court, contending that the Respondent did not dispute his signature or the fact of borrowing money.

1. Whether the Appellant successfully established the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability to the tune of ₹90,000 as required under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act.

2. Whether the Appellate Court’s reversal of the trial court's conviction was perverse or legally infirm, warranting interference by the High Court.

The court applied Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which requires the complainant to prove that a cheque was issued in discharge of a "legally enforceable debt or liability".

An appellate court should not disturb an acquittal if two reasonable conclusions are possible, as the "double presumption of innocence" strengthens the accused's position.

Principles governing appeals against acquittal established in Chandrappa v. State of Karnataka (2007), reaffirmed in Rajesh Prasad v. State of Bihar (2022) and Ramesh v. State of Karnataka (2024).

The High Court observed that while the Respondent admitted to borrowing ₹50,000 (supported by independent witness testimony), the Appellant failed to produce any evidence proving the additional ₹40,000 required to reach the cheque amount of ₹90,000.

The Court reasoned that since the Appellant could not establish the full "legally enforceable debt" for the face value of the cheque, the essential ingredients of Section 138 NI Act remained unproven.

Applying the standard of review for acquittals, the Court found that the appellate court’s findings were cogent and did not suffer from manifest illegality or perversity.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment of acquittal passed by the Sessions Court; The bail bond was cancelled and record proceedings were ordered to be returned.