Statutory presumption for cheque dishonour requires proof that the complainant is the holder and that debt is legally enforceable.

The Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies only in favour of a holder of the cheque. Where the cheque is not drawn in the complainant's name and the complainant is not shown to be the holder within Section 8, the statutory presumption cannot arise in his favour. The complainant must then independently prove the foundational facts of the transaction and the legally enforceable debt or liability through supporting evidence. In the absence of invoices, delivery documents, account records, or examination of the broker said to have arranged the transaction, the accused's version that the cheque was issued as security was found more probable, and interference with the acquittal was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal of the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in appeal, particularly on the questions whether the complainant was a holder of the cheque and whether the cheque was proved to have been issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The complainant's case depended on the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. On the facts found, Ext.P1 was a cash cheque and was not drawn in the complainant's name. In view of the definition of "holder" in Section 8 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant was not entitled in his own name to receive or recover the amount due thereunder, and the presumption under Section 139 could not be drawn in his favour. Once that presumption was unavailable, the complainant had to independently prove the foundational facts of the alleged transaction and liability. The record contained no supporting documents such as invoices, bills, delivery challans, or account statements, and the broker through whom the transaction allegedly took place was not examined. The accused's version that the cheque had been issued as security through the broker was found to be more probable on the evidence.

Conclusion: The complainant failed to establish that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the acquittal did not suffer from perversity, illegality, or gross unreasonableness. Interference was therefore not warranted and the accused remained acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates only in favour of a holder of the cheque, and where the complainant is not shown to be such holder, the burden remains on the complainant to prove the legally enforceable debt or liability by independent evidence.

---