Proof of legally enforceable debt under Section 138 fails where execution of the promissory note is not established.

Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act depends on proof that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The complainant failed to establish the underlying loan transaction and did not satisfactorily prove execution of the promissory note; the circumstances of execution were unclear, and the scribe or other supporting witness was not examined. Mere admission of signatures was held insufficient to prove execution of the document. On these facts, the statutory presumption was treated as rebutted, the prosecution case became doubtful, and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the complainant failed to prove the underlying debt and the execution of the promissory note on which the cheque was said to have been issued.

Analysis: To sustain liability under Section 138, the complainant had to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The evidence did not satisfactorily establish the loan transaction or the execution of the promissory note: the complainant was unable to state the circumstances of execution with clarity, and the scribe or other supporting witness to the document was not examined. Mere admission of signatures did not amount to proof of execution of the promissory note. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption stood rebutted and the prosecution case became doubtful. The surrounding facts, including the prior dispute with a third party and the timing of the cheque, added to the doubt, but the decisive failure was the absence of proof of a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

---