JUDGMENT

Harish Tandon, J. - Both the criminal appeals are taken up together as common question of law is raised therein. Apart from the same both the appeals have been filed by a common appellant against a common respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 on dishonour of several cheques issued in discharge of alleged debt of the liabilities.

2. Fundamentally, two legal points have evolved. Firstly, the presumption raised under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 is restricted to the debt or other liability and not on legally enforceable debt or the liability. Secondly, is it obligatory on the part of an accused to lead an evidence of rebuttal which is opposed to the right of innocence provided under the criminal jurisprudence.

3. Both the appeals have a common thread of facts and narration of one would suffice to addressing the issues raised in the instant appeals. Two separate complaint cases were filed by the appellant alleging dishonour of cheque issued by the respondent for the debt duly acknowledged upon execution of a promissory note. The complainant is engaged in a business of pharmaceutical goods and carrying on such business in the n