Cheque presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act survives where principal liability is admitted and interest calculations differ.

Where the drawer admits issuance and signing of the cheque, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the complainant. A dispute over the rate of interest reflected in loan documents, without more, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt when the principal liability is not disputed. Partial repayment evidence, if incomplete, does not establish full discharge, and closure of the bank account after issuance of the cheque strengthens the inference of liability. The reasoning that the debt was unenforceable merely because of interest calculation differences is therefore unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and whether the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted so as to sustain the acquittal.

Analysis: The issuance and signing of the cheque were not in dispute. Once that fact was established, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The principal loan amount was not disputed, and the difference in the rate of interest reflected in the pronotes and the statement of accounts was held to be insufficient by itself to discredit the debt. The evidence of partial repayment produced before the appellate forum did not establish complete discharge of liability. Closure of the bank account after issuance of the cheque also weighed against the accused. The reasoning that the claim was not enforceable merely because of variations in interest calculation was found unsustainable.

Conclusion: The acquittal could not stand, and the cheque was held to have been issued towards a legally enforceable liability; the appeal succeeded in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the drawer admits issuance of the cheque and the principal liability is not disputed, a mere discrepancy in interest computation or incomplete evidence of partial repayment does not rebut the statutory presumption of enforceable debt under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---