SSM 1 30.appln.72.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 72 OF 2010 Shafiq Ahmed Abdul Majd. .... Applicant. Versus State of Maharashtra and another .... Respondents. Mr. N. R. Bubna, Advocate for the Applicant. Mr. V. R. Bhosale, APP for the Respondent State. CORAM: SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. DATED: 18 th FEBRUARY, 2011 P.C.: This is an application for leave to file appeal against the judgment and order of acquittal of the respondent in the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The trial court has dismissed the complaint and acquitted the Respondent on the ground that the Applicant failed to establish with the cheque issued by her was towards the discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. SSM 2 30.appln.72.10 Admittedly, as stated in the complaint itself, the cheque issued by the respondent was towards the liability due from the husband of the respondent to the complainant. It appears that the complainant entered into an agreement with the husband of the respondent for sale of his immovable property. Pursuant to the agreement, he handed over the possession of the land to a person to whom the land was sold through the husband of the respondent. It appears that the cheque of the respondent was handed over to the applicant towards the price of the land which cheque when presented for payment was dishonoured. 2. Mr. Bubna, the learned Counsel for the applicant submits relying upon the agreement dated 25th September, 2006, Exhibit-22 to the application that the respondent had taken over the liability of her husband and issued the cheque in question. 3. As such she became liable to pay the amount to the SSM 3 30.appln.72.10 applicant. Perusal of Exhibit-22 shows that it merely records that there was a transaction of sale of the property of the applicant through the husband of the respondent and that the respondent and her husband issued four cheques to the applicant. The agreement nowhere states that the respondent has taken over the liability of her husband. In that circumstance, the trial court has rightly held that the cheque in question was not issued for discharge of any legally enforceable debt or liability. 4. Mr. Bubna submits that Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 raises presumption in favour of the applicant that since the cheque has been issued by the respondent in favour of the applicant, the same was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability unless the contrary is proved. He submits that the respondent has not produced any evidence before the court for rebuttal of the presumption under Section 139 of SSM 4 30.appln.72.10 the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. There is no need for the respondent to produce any evidence for rebuttal of the presumption as the facts required to rebut of presumption are stated in the complaint itself. The Application is dismissed. (SMT. R. P. SONDURBALDOTA J.)