The presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act is rebuttable, and the burden shifts to the accused once the complainant establishes the cheque's issuance for debt discharge.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of acquittal dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar Bhatapara in Criminal Case No.56/2022, whereby, the respondent/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, the “NI Act”).

2. As per complaint, the complainant and respondent/accused were acquainted to each other. The accused has taken a cash loan of Rs.5,50,000/- from the complainant/appellant for domestic work in the year 2018 and promised to return the amount within one year, however, he has not paid the same within the said period. After several efforts made by the complainant, the accused given cheque of Rs.5,50,000/- on 15.09.2021. However, when the cheque was presented before the Bank for encashment, the same was returned dishonoured for want of insufficient funds. The complainant has also legal notice to the accused for payment of cheque amount, however, the accused has not paid the same. Hence, the complainant has filed complaint case against the accused.

3. The accused has denied the allegation levelled against him and claimed to be tried. The trial Court after evaluating the evidence on record reached to conclusion that the complainant failed to establish his case beyond reasonable doubt and acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 138 of the NI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is a legal presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that valid consideration has been passed which has not been rebutted by the respondent/accused, however, the trial Court has not appreciated the evidence in proper perspective and committed error while passing the judgment of acquittal, therefore, the judgment of acquittal deserves to be set-aside.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully.

6. In the matter of Rajesh Jain Vs. Ajay Singh , (2023) 10 SCC 148 , the law relating to the effect of legal presumption as per Section 118 and Section 139 of the NI Act has been clarified. As per Section 118 of the NI Act it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration and as per Section 139 of the Act “unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability. Both the presumptions are rebuttable in nature. The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment i.e. 33 to 44 is reproduced hereunder:- “33. The NI Act provides for two presumptions: Section 118 and Section 139. Section 118 of the Act inter alia directs that it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that every negotiable instrument was made or drawn for consideration. Section 139 of the Act stipulates that “unless the contrary is proved, it shall be presumed, that the holder of the cheque received the cheque, for the discharge of, whole or part of any debt or liability”. It will be seen that the “presumed fact” directly relates to one of the crucial ingredients necessary to sustain a conviction under Section 138. The rules discussed hereinbelow are common to both the presumptions under Section 139 and Section 118 and are hence, not repeated- reference to one can be taken as reference to another”

“34. Section 139 of the NI Act, which takes the form of a “shall presume” clause is illustrative of a presumption of law. Because Section 139 requires that the Court “shall presume” the fact stated therein, it is obligatory on the Court to raise this presumption in every case where the factual basis for the raising of the presumption had been