Negotiable Instruments Act presumptions rebutted when enforceable debt was not proved; acquittal upheld.

Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. The foundational MOU and material showing how the alleged loss was quantified or how the cheque amount represented a crystallised liability were not produced, and the complainant's witness lacked personal knowledge of the transaction. The defence adduced documents suggesting coercive procurement of the cheque and rebutted the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The burden then shifted back to the complainant, who did not discharge it, so the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the cheque was proved to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and whether the acquittal recorded by the lower appellate court called for interference.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were admitted, attracting the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. However, the complainant failed to produce the foundational MOU and other material to show how the alleged loss was quantified or how the cheque amount represented a crystallised liability. The evidence of the complainant's witness did not show personal knowledge of the transaction, while the defence produced documents to support the case that the cheque was obtained in coercive circumstances and that the alleged liability had not been established. The presumption was therefore rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities, and the burden shifted back to the complainant, who did not discharge it.

Conclusion: The existence of a legally enforceable debt was not proved, and the acquittal recorded by the lower appellate court was upheld.

---