Section 139 presumption extends to legally enforceable debt once cheque issuance is proved and unrebutted.

A company representative was found duly authorised to depose and act for the complainant because the board resolution expressly empowered him to sign papers, execute affidavits and give evidence, and the challenge to his authority lacked support. On the cheque dishonour claim, the court found that supply of goods on credit, an outstanding balance, issuance and dishonour of cheques, and non-payment after notice established liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Once cheque issuance was proved, the Section 139 presumption applied to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the accused failed to rebut it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the company representative was duly authorised to depose and act on behalf of the complainant company. (ii) Whether the accused had issued the cheques towards a legally enforceable debt and thereby committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the company representative was duly authorised to depose and act on behalf of the complainant company.

Analysis: The company had produced a board resolution authorising the sales manager to sign papers, execute affidavits and adduce evidence in the case. The challenge to his authority was not supported by any material, and the resolution specifically covered representation in the proceedings.

Conclusion: The representative was duly authorised, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused had issued the cheques towards a legally enforceable debt and thereby committed the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The evidence showed supply of goods on credit, an outstanding balance, issuance of two cheques by the accused, dishonour of those cheques due to closure of the drawer's account, and service of statutory notice without payment. Once issuance of the cheques was established, the presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant, and the accused did not rebut it with any material. The earlier view that legally recoverable debt was not covered by the presumption was treated as having been clarified by later authority.

Conclusion: The cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and the offence under Section 138 stood proved.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the accused was held liable for cheque dishonour, with the conviction and sentence maintained in law.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance of a cheque is proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, subject to rebuttal by the accused.

---