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 from the house of PW1. But, the cheque, on presentation to the bank, was returned unpaid for “insufficient funds” along with memo, Exhibit P3. A lawyer notice (the copy is Exhibit P5) was sent to the accused. Still, he did not repay the amount, and hence, after complying with the legal formalities, a complaint was filed against him.

3. To prove the complaint, PWs.1 to 3 were examined, Exhibits P1 to P8 and Exhibit X1 were marked. The accused did not adduce any oral evidence, but marked Exhibits D1 and D2. According to accused, he never borrowed any amount from the complainant nor did he issue any cheque to the complainant. He does not even know the complainant. This case is falsely foisted against him by the power-of-attorney holder of the complainant who is on inimical terms with him, on account of another transaction.

4. The accused set up a plea that he borrowed Rs.25000/- from PW1, the ‘so-called power-of-attorney holder’ of the complainant and handed over two blank cheques to her as security. He discharged a part of that liability but, PW1 was not satisfied. She demanded for more money and went to the accused’s house with her husband and made unjustifiable demands. Following this, there was a quarrel between them from the accused’s house which ended up in an assault. The accused was injured in the incident and a case was registered by the police on his complaint against PW1 and her husband. Thereafter, PW1 misused the blank cheques given to her and filed two complaints against the accused. One was filed by PW1 herself as the complainant; the other was filed by her, allegedly on behalf of her sister-in-law, as the power-of-attorney holder.

5. The court below, after considering the evidence and other materials, found that the complainant did not have the financial capacity to pay Rs.2,00,000/- to the accused. It was also held that it is probable that the accused issued two singed blank cheques as security to PW1, when he borrowed Rs.25,000/- from her. But, PW1 falsely typed complainant’s name and other particulars in the cheque and presented it in the bank. The accused was acquitted of offence under Section 138 of the Act. The trial court also found that this is a false and vexatious case, and issued summons to the complainant to show cause why she should not pay compensation to the accused, invoking Section 250 of the Code of criminal procedure (the code, for short).

6. On a perusal of the records, I find that the definite case of the accused is that he did not issue any cheque in favour of the complainant and he had absolutely no transaction with her. They are not even known to each other. PW1 admitted that the complainant and accused were not known to each other. It was also brought out from PW1’s evidence that the accused has some liability towards P