"14. There is no controversy before this Court that the cheque was signed by the third respondent on behalf of the first respondent company and that the said cheque was drawn as against the account relating to the first respondent company. In order to raise the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, it is needless to point out that the due execution of the Negotiable Instrument namely the cheque in question was raised by the third respondent is to be proved. In this case, though it is the positive case of the complainant that the cheque was completely filled up indicating the due execution of the same and was handed over to the complainant by the third respondent, the contention of the third respondent is that the cheque was never issued to the complainant and it was issued only to Mr.Chellappan as a blank cheque, the same was later on filled up and the services of the complainant has been utilized by Mr. Chellappan. Section 118 of the Act, speaks of certain presumptions as to Negotiable Instruments. One of the presumptions is in respect of the consideration. It states that the Court shall presume that the Negotiable Instrument was made or drawn for consideration, and that such instrument, when it has been accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred, was accepted, indorsed, negotiated or transferred for consideration. This presumption, of course is rebuttable. In order to raise the said presumption, it is absolutely necessary for the complainant that the Negotiable Instrument was duly made, that means it was duly executed by the respondents. In this case, since the execution of the cheque is under dispute, unless it is duly proved by the complainant that the cheque was filled up by the third respondent and issued by him, the presumption under Section 118(a) cannot be
