Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.M. Thakur, Adv.
For the Respondent: Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Adv.

Based on the provided legal document, the key points of law and reasoning are as follows:

1. The issuance of a cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a statutory presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt or liability, which shifts the burden onto the accused to rebut this presumption (!) (!) (!) .

2. The presumption is rebuttable, and the accused can do so by providing evidence or raising a probable defence that casts doubt on the existence of the debt or liability (!) (!) (!) (!) .

3. Once the signature on the cheque is admitted, the court must presume that the cheque was issued for consideration, and the burden shifts to the accused to prove that there was no debt or liability (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

4. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must produce a probable defence that creates doubt about the existence of the debt or liability (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

5. Evidence such as the non-mention of the loan in income tax returns, absence of documentation, or failure to establish the transaction as a legal debt can be relevant in rebutting the presumption, but the initial presumption remains until effectively rebutted (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

6. Even if the cheque was issued as a security, it does not exempt the drawer from criminal liability under Section 138 if the cheque is dishonoured due to insufficient funds; issuing a cheque as security still attracts liability if the cheque is presented and dishonoured (!) (!) (!) .

7. Proper service of demand notice is presumed when sent to the correct address, and failure to receive the notice does not automatically invalidate the proceedings, provided the notice was properly dispatched and proved to have been sent (!) (!) .

8. The burden of proof that the cheque was not issued for a debt or that the transaction was illegal lies with the accused, and mere denial or incomplete evidence under Section 313 does not suffice to rebut the presumption (!) (!) (!) .

9. The courts are expected to give due weight to the presumption and the evidence on record, and appellate courts should be slow to interfere with an acquittal unless the order is perverse or not supported by evidence (!) (!) (!) .

10. The legal framework emphasizes that the presumption of liability is a statutory rule, and the accused must produce credible evidence to displace this presumption; otherwise, the court should proceed to find the accused guilty if the presumption remains unrebutted (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

11. The legal principles also clarify that transactions made in violation of certain statutory provisions, such as those relating to illegal money lending or cash transactions exceeding prescribed limits, do not automatically invalidate the transaction but may attract penalties or separate legal consequences (!) (!) .

12. Overall, the legal approach underscores that once the initial presumption is established, the burden shifts to the accused to prove that the cheque was not issued for a debt or that the transaction was unlawful, and failure to do so results in a conviction (!) (!) (!) .

In conclusion, the law clearly establishes that the presumption of liability arising from the issuance of a cheque is strong and rebuttable. The accused’s duty is to produce evidence that reasonably casts doubt on the existence of the debt or liability. Absent such evidence, the court is justified in holding the accused liable for the dishonour of the cheque.