Legally enforceable debt must be proved first; cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act do not replace foundational evidence.

In a prosecution for dishonour of cheque, the complainant must first establish a legally enforceable debt or liability on the evidence before the statutory presumption under Section 139 can operate. The presumption does not, by itself, prove the debt, and it may be displaced where the accused rebuts the foundational facts under Section 118(a). On the stated facts, the absence of documentary proof of lending, credible proof of financial capacity, or any written acknowledgment meant the complainant failed to prove the debt, so the conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the complainant failed to establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the presumption under Section 139 was invoked without first rebutting the presumption under Section 118(a).

Analysis: The presumption under Section 139 operates only in respect of the issuance of the cheque for discharge of a debt or liability; it does not, by itself, establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Before drawing that presumption, the court must examine whether the complainant has discharged the initial burden of proving the debt or liability on the facts and evidence. On the record, the complainant produced no documentary proof of lending, no convincing evidence of financial capacity, and no explanation for advancing a substantial amount without interest or written acknowledgment. The materials also indicated that the complainant's income was modest and inconsistent with his claim of having advanced the loan. In these circumstances, the presumption under Section 118(a) stood rebutted and the complainant failed to prove the foundational fact of a legally enforceable debt.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could not be sustained and the finding was in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138, the complainant must first prove the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability on the evidence before the statutory presumption under Section 139 can be applied.

---