Foundational proof of cheque transaction must precede presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act; case remanded for fresh evidence.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the foundational facts of the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque through a witness with direct knowledge before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can arise. Evidence from a witness who knew of the matter only from records was insufficient to discharge that initial burden. The materials also indicated that the outstanding balance matched the cheque amount, so the matter was not closed finally against the complainant without giving an opportunity to adduce further evidence. The conviction and sentence were set aside and the case was remanded for fresh consideration.

---

---

Issues: Whether the complainant had discharged the initial burden of proving the transaction, issuance and execution of the cheque so as to attract the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the conviction and sentence required interference with a remand for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The evidence of the witness examined for the complainant showed that he had no direct knowledge of the transaction, issuance or execution of the cheque and had come to know of the matter only from records after joining the company. The complainant therefore failed to prove the foundational facts necessary to invoke the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. At the same time, the account statement indicated that the outstanding balance corresponded with the cheque amount, so the materials did not justify a final closure against the complainant without giving an opportunity to adduce further evidence on the transaction and execution of the cheque.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with liberty to the complainant to adduce additional evidence and the accused to meet that evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the foundational facts of the transaction and execution of the cheque through a witness having direct knowledge before the statutory presumptions can be invoked.

---