Legally enforceable debt not proved under cheque dishonour law; acquittal upheld after statutory presumption was rebutted.

The complainant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 because he did not establish a legally enforceable debt or liability arising from any transaction with the accused. His evidence showed that he was not the original party to the underlying property transaction, the alleged agreements were not produced, and the accused were strangers to him before execution of the sale deed. The cheques had originally been issued in connection with a different transaction, and the complainant had inserted his name as payee. On these facts, the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted, and the acquittal was upheld without interference.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and whether the acquittal required interference.

Analysis: The complainant failed to establish, by reliable evidence, that there was a transaction between him and the accused giving rise to a legally enforceable liability. His own testimony showed that he was not the original contracting party in the underlying property transaction, that he had not produced the alleged agreements, and that the accused were strangers to him before execution of the sale deed. The evidence also showed that the cheques had originally been issued in connection with a different transaction and that the complainant had inserted his name as payee. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted, and the evidence did not prove liability in the complainant's favour.

Conclusion: The complainant did not prove the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the acquittal did not warrant interference.

---