Cheque prosecution requires direct proof of issuance before presumptions arise; conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was set aside.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove issuance and execution of the cheque through a competent witness with direct knowledge before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate. A company may act through an authorised representative, but a witness who relies only on company records and lacks personal knowledge cannot establish the transaction or the cheque's execution. On the evidence, the complainant failed to discharge the initial burden, so the conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the complainant's witness had no direct knowledge of the transaction and the authorisation to prosecute was not produced.

Analysis: A company may prosecute a complaint through an authorised representative, but such representative must have witnessed the transaction or possess direct knowledge of it. A witness who only speaks from company records and has no personal knowledge cannot prove the issuance or execution of the cheque. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise only after execution of the cheque is proved; until then, the initial burden remains on the complainant. On the evidence, there was no substantive proof of issuance or execution of the cheque, and the complainant failed to discharge the primary burden.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were unsustainable and were set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove issuance and execution of the cheque through a competent witness with direct knowledge before the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate.

---