((-1-)) mst IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2160 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohamed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Mohd.Rafique Mehboob Shaikh Respondents and another WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2161 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohamed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Mansur Yusuf Shaikh & anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2162 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohamed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Mansur Yusuf Shaikh & anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2163 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohamed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Khwaja Mohammed R. Shaikh & anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION N9O.2164 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohammed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Khawja Mohammed R. Shaikh & anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2165 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohammed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Rehanabee Jafar Shaikh @ Ghodomabee Jafar Shaikh & anr. Respondents ((-2-)) WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2166 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohd. Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Mohd.Rafique M. Shaikh& anr. Respondents WITH CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2167 OF 2008 Shaikh Mohamed Shafi Ibrahim Petitioner versus Rehanabee Jafar Shaikh @ Ghodomabee Jafar Shaikh Respondents N.R.Bubna for petitioner. S.D.Rayrikar for respondents. CORAM : A.S.OKA, J. DATE : 28th April 2009 PC : 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has been arraigned as an accused in a private complaint filed by the contesting respondent under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"). The facts of these petitions are identical. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the order of issue of process on two grounds. The first ground is that the complainant has not pleaded in the complaint ((-3-)) the nature of liability in discharge of which the cheque was allegedly issued. He submitted that existence of liability is not pleaded in the complaint. The second submission is that the consideration pleaded in the verification statement of the complainant is itself illegal as it is stated that the consideration was towards surrender of tenancy. 3. I have considered the submissions. I have perused the averments made in the complaint and the verification statement. As far as first submission is concerned, the same has no merit as there is a presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 which provides that it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque, of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or any other liability. In view of the statutory presumption under section 139, it was not necessary for the complainant to plead the nature of liability or the particulars of liability in discharge of which the cheque was allegedly issued. 4. So far as second contention is concerned, ((-4-)) the complainant has stated in the verification that he was occupying a tenement owned by the petitioner. In fire on 27th March 1999 the said tenement was destroyed. According to the complainant, the petitioner informed him that if he vacates the tenement he would construct a new tenement for him and handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs.50,000/- which has been dishonoured. Taking the verification as it is, it is not possible to accept that the cheque amount was towards illegal consideration or transaction. Apart from this, whether the debt was a legally enforceable debt or not is a question which will have to be decided only after the parties adduced evidence. 5. No case is made out for interference. The writ petitions are rejected. It is, however, made clear that all contentions of the petitioners on merits are expressly kept open. Hearing of the complaints is expedited. (A.S.OKA, J.)