Can it be presumed under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’, for short) that the cheque is drawn/executed by the accused for the discharge of a debt or liability? What exactly is the ‘fact’ which can be presumed by the court under Section 139 of the Act? Under what circumstance the presumption under section 139 can be drawn? What are the basic requirements for drawing the presumption under section 139 of the Act? On whom does the burden lie to establish those pre-requisites? These are some of the important questions which I would ponder upon, for the purpose of disposal of this appeal.

2. A complaint was filed by the complainant-appellant through PW1, the power-of-attorney holder against the first respondent alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’, for short). As per the allegations in the complaint, complainant and accused are friends and distant relatives. The accused allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the complainant at PW1’s house, agreeing to repay the amount with interest in three months. But he failed to do so. Hence, on repeated demands, Ex.P2 was issued by him for discharge of the debt fro