of ING Vysya Bank Limited Dharampur, District Solan, H.P., Ex.CW1/C, legal notice/demand noticed dated 22.12.2014 Ex.CW1/D, acknowledgment card Ex.CW1/E and passbook Ex.CW1/F. Accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C, nowhere specifically denied factum with regard to his having issued cheque, rather he admitted issuance of cheque but not towards the discharge of lawful liability but as a security. He setup a case that he was working as Carpenter in the complainant’s house and had taken some advance of Rs. 75,000/and in lieu thereof had issued security cheque, which was misused by him. Since, there is no denial with regard to issuance of cheque and signature thereupon on the part of the petitioner-accused, presumption with regard to issuance of cheque as provided under Section 139 of the Act comes into play. Section 139 of the Act clearly provides that there is presumption in favour of holder of the cheque that same was issued towards discharge of lawful liability. No doubt, aforesaid presumption can be rebutted by leading cogent and convincing evidence. To rebut the presumption as provided under Section 139 of the Act, accused either can lead positive evidence or can place reliance upon the documents or pleadings adduced on record by the complainant. In the instant case, though accused attempted to setup a case that cheque in question was issued as a security, but in support of such defence, he failed to lead evidence.
