The central legal point established in the judgment is the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the presumption, emphasizing the importance of restoring the credibility of cheques in business transactions.

This appeal has been preferred by the Complainants/appellants under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the judgment in C.C.No.230 of 1993 on the file of Judicial Magistrate,Gudiyatham,Vellore District.

2. The brief facts of the complaint, filed by the complainant are as follows:

The present complainants are the legal representatives of the deceased Sathyamurthy, the original complainant, from whom the accused had borrowed a sum of Rs.70,000/-as hand loan and issued three cheques dated 18. 1993 for Rs.40,000/-(Cheque No.74902), Rs.20,000/-(Cheque NO.74903) and Rs.10,000/-(Cheque No.74904). The complainant had presented those three cheques for encashment, but the same were dishonoured on the ground of "insufficient funds in the account of the accused." The complainant had issued a notice dated 29. 1993 which was received by the accused on 29. 1993. The accused had sent a reply notice dated 10. 1993 with false contentions. Hence the complaint.

3. After taking the complaint on his file, the learned Judicial Magistrate, after following the formalities had furnished copies under Section 207 Cr.P.C to the accused and when the offence was explained to the accused, he pleaded not guilty.

4. Before the trial Court,on the side of the complainant, the complainant had examined himself as P.W.1 besides examining the official of Canara Bank, Pernambut Branch as P.W.2 and exhibited Exs P1 to P7. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on the side of the accused. No material object was marked.

5. After going through the evidence both oral and documentary, the learned trial Judge has dismissed the complaint on the ground that the complainant had failed to prove that Exs P1 to P3 impugned cheques were drawn by the accused in order to discharge a subsisting liability. Aggrieved against the findings of the learned trial Judge, the legal representatives of the complainant, who died pending trial before the trial Court have preferred this appeal.

6. Now the point for determination in this appeal is whether the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act has been attracted against the accused to warrant conviction under the said provision of law?

7. Heard Mr. R. Vijayaraghavan, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. K. Goviganesan, learned counsel for the respondent and considered their rival submissions.

8. The Point:

The complainant had deposed before the trial Court and his chief examination was recorded before the trial Court on 12. 1997 and through whom the impugned cheques Exs P1 to P3 were marked. P.W.1 has deposed to the fact that after receiving a sum of Rs.70,000/- from him, the accused had drawn Ex P1 cheque for Rs.40,000/- and Ex P2 cheque for Rs.20,000/- and Ex P3 cheque for Rs.10,000/-on the same date ie., on 18. 1993 and when those cheques were presented one month after the date of drawal of cheque as requested by the accused, those cheques were dishonoured by the bank on 29. 1993 on the ground of " insufficient funds". Ex P4 is the bank intimation sent along with the dishonoured cheques Exs P1 to P3. Thereafter, the complainant had issued notice under the original of Ex P5 which was received by the accused on 29. 1993 under Ex P6 acknowledgment. Ex P7 is the reply notice sent by the accused.

8a. P.W.2 is the Manager of Canara Bank, Pernamput Branch who would depose to the fact that Exs P1 to P3 impugned cheques were dishonoured by the bank on the ground of "insufficient funds". Against the said evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2, there was no contra evidence let in by the accused.

9. P.W.1 could not be cross examined by the accused because he died during trial. After chief examination was over, there was sufficient time given to the accused to cross examine P.W.1. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants that P.W.1 died one month after he gave chief examination before the trial Court,but he was not cross examined by the accused. In the reply notice Ex P7, th