Cheque dishonour presumption applies only after foundational facts prove a legally enforceable debt and proper notice.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption of liability under Section 139 arises only after the complainant proves the foundational facts, including cheque dishonour and a legally enforceable debt. The evidence here did not satisfactorily establish the alleged debt, and there were gaps and inconsistencies in the complainant's documents and testimony, including the absence of the cheque return memo and proper proof of notice. On that footing, the statutory presumption did not assist the complainant, and the trial court's acquittal, being supported by reasons, was not interfered with in appeal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference when the complainant failed to establish the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability and the foundational facts of dishonour and notice were not satisfactorily proved.

Analysis: The evidence did not satisfactorily establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt of Rs. 1,00,000/- against the accused. The record showed discrepancies in the complainant's documents and testimony, including missing supporting documents relating to the alleged dues, inconsistencies regarding the outstanding amount, and absence of the cheque return memo and proper proof of notice. Since the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 depends on foundational facts being proved, the deficiencies in proof meant that the statutory presumption did not assist the complainant. The Trial Court's assessment of the evidence was supported by reasons and did not call for reappreciation in appeal against acquittal.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and no interference was made with the Trial Court's finding.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption of liability arises only after the complainant proves the foundational facts, including a proved cheque dishonour and the existence of a legally enforceable debt; absent such proof, an order of acquittal should not be disturbed.

---