Statutory presumption for cheque liability stands unless rebutted by cogent evidence; cheque may discharge another person's debt.

On admission of the cheque and signatures, the statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability arises under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut it with probable and cogent evidence. Mere allegations of misuse, absence of privity, or denial of liability are insufficient without supporting proof. The text also states that a cheque may be issued towards discharge of another person's debt or liability, because the expression "any debt or other liability" is broad enough to cover such cases. On these principles, the unrebutted presumption led to restoration of the trial court conviction and compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellate court erred in reversing the conviction by holding that the accused were not liable to pay the cheque amount and that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The cheque bore the admitted signatures of the accused. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant. The accused alleged misuse of the cheque and absence of privity of contract with the complainant company, but led no cogent evidence to substantiate that defence. The record showed admissions regarding the earlier business arrangement, the memorandum of understanding, the existence of liability, and the role of the accused as directors of the concerned company. The legal position is that a cheque may be issued towards discharge of another person's debt or liability, and the expression "any debt or other liability" is broad enough to cover such a case. The accused failed to rebut the presumption by probable evidence either in cross-examination or by independent proof.

Conclusion: The appellate court erred in holding that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The presumption under the Act stood unrebutted, and the acquittal was unsustainable. The finding of acquittal was liable to be set aside and the trial court conviction restored.

Final Conclusion: The complainant succeeded in establishing the offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the conviction and compensation awarded by the trial court were reinstated.

Ratio Decidendi: On admission of the cheque and signatures, the statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability arises, and it can be displaced only by probable and cogent evidence; a cheque may also be issued for discharge of another person's debt or liability.

---