Can the complainant (ie., the “payee” or the “holder in due course”) in a prosecution for offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (the Act, for short) be presumed to be the “holder” of the cheque? Can the presumption under section 139 of the Act be drawn in favour of the complainant, invariably in all such complaints treating him as the “holder” of the cheque? Can the mere admission of the handwriting and signature in the cheque lead to the presumption under section 139 of the Act that the cheque is received for the discharge of a debt or liability? These are the main questions which arise for consideration in this appeal.

FACTS, BRIEFLY:

2. The appellant filed a complaint before Magistrate’s Court, alleging offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (‘the Act’, for short), against first respondent herein. The accused-first respondent allegedly borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- from complainant and issued a cheque, Ext.P1 for the discharge of the debt. The cheque, on presentation was dishonoured, due to insufficiency of funds. Notice was issued to accused, other legal formalities were complied with, and a complaint was filed against first