Cheque dishonour liability must be proved as a legally enforceable debt before the Section 139 presumption can sustain conviction.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot stand unless the complainant first proves a credible legally enforceable debt. The complainant's document supported only a liability of Rs. 12,00,000, not the larger amount claimed, and the endorsements and related payments were found unreliable and insufficiently coherent. On that basis, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was not attracted for the full alleged liability, and inconsistencies in the defence could not cure the failure to establish the foundational debt. The conviction was therefore held unsustainable and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the complainant failed to establish the cheque liability as a legally enforceable debt and the statutory presumption was not attracted.

Analysis: The document relied upon by the complainant showed a liability of only Rs. 12,00,000 and not Rs. 19,50,000. The endorsements on the document were not wholly reliable, including one bearing a date earlier than the document itself, and the payments sought to be linked with the transaction were not shown with sufficient coherence. In these circumstances, the complainant's case did not stand on its own strength. The statutory presumption under Section 139 could not be drawn for the entire alleged liability, and the conviction could not be sustained merely on the basis of inconsistencies in the defence.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable and the petitioner was entitled to acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The judgments of the courts below were set aside, and the petitioner stood acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, the statutory presumption cannot sustain a conviction unless the complainant first establishes a credible and legally enforceable debt; where the foundational liability itself is not proved, acquittal must follow.

---