Negotiable instruments presumptions reinforced where signatures were admitted, but liability failed for a cheque tied to another person's debt.

Admission of the drawer's signatures attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities; the first cheque was therefore treated as issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and liability under Section 138 was established. By contrast, the second cheque was not proved to represent the accused's own liability because the underlying advance was shown to have been made to her husband, with no pleading or proof that she had assumed responsibility for that debt; the presumption was rebutted on those facts, and no liability was sustained on that count.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the first cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- was issued towards a legally enforceable debt so as to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. (ii) Whether the second cheque for Rs. 1,30,000/- was issued in discharge of a liability legally enforceable against the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the first cheque for Rs. 3,00,000/- was issued towards a legally enforceable debt so as to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The signatures on the cheque were admitted, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant. The trial court had erred in placing the burden on the complainant to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt without first applying the mandatory presumption. The promissory note connected with the cheque was accepted as proved, and the accused failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence based on an afterthought complaint of threat and coercion was found insufficient to displace the presumption.

Conclusion: The first cheque was held to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and liability under Section 138 was established against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the second cheque for Rs. 1,30,000/- was issued in discharge of a liability legally enforceable against the accused.

Analysis: The complainant's own evidence showed that the amount represented by the second promissory note was advanced to the accused's husband, not to the accused, and the complaint did not plead that the accused had undertaken to repay her husband's debt. In the absence of pleadings or proof that the accused had assumed liability as guarantor or otherwise, the cheque could not be treated as one issued towards a debt or liability of the accused. The presumption under Section 139 was therefore successfully rebutted on these facts.

Conclusion: The second cheque was not proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable liability of the accused, and no conviction could be sustained on that count.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was interfered with only to the extent of the first cheque, resulting in conviction and sentence for that part alone, while the finding in favour of the accused regarding the second cheque was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; however, a cheque issued for another person's debt is not enforceable against the accused unless liability is pleaded and proved against her.

---