other proper authority for such forceful taking of cheque in question and the scooter from their possession and the same also remained disproved. While it is the plea of the accused/petitioner that she has repaid the loan taken by her and cheque was also taken forcefully towards remaining amount of interest of loan, it was incumbent on her part to substantiate the same by way of proper evidence by herself, which is not found in this case. The defence evidence adduced by her is not at all enough to rebut the presumption under the law. In the circumstances, the learned trial court has rightly raised the statutory presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act. Under Section 118/139 of the N.I. Act the court is to draw presumption that the holder of cheque is a holder in due course obtained from this lawful owner and unless contrary is proved that the holder of cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to Section 138 for discharge, in whole or in part of any debt and liability. It will be appropriate to refer the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Bir Singh vs Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 106 SCC 923 and Hiten P. Dalal vs Batindra Nath Banerjee (2001) 6 SCC 16.
