memo, bill, invoice or challan.” But in the present case, the complainant herself produced blank form-38 as Ex. C11, meaning thereby, the complainant had not sent the goods to the accused. There is no mention in the complaint that the complainant sent goods to the accused from Deoband (Saharanpur-UP). However, during crossexamination CW1 Farida made improvements by saying that the goods were sent to the accused from Deoband Branch. Further she admitted that she is not having any firm at Deoband. Her cross-examination was deferred for want of bill book for which she assured that she would produce the same on next date. However, again she failed to produce any bill rather said that the bill book had been stolen. Moreover, she has failed to produce receipt of weighing machine, the only document which she could produce to prove the purchase of goods. So, in this way, the complainant has failed to prove the fact that she ever sent goods to the accused. Ex. C11 itself makes the case of complainant highly doubtful. So, the complainant has not been able to prove that the accused had issued the cheques in question in her favour in discharge of his legal enforceable debt or liability. Thus, the accused has successfully rebutted the presumption that holder of the cheques had not received it for discharge of any debt or liability. Moreover, it is settled law that mere signing a cheque do not amount to execution of cheque and the complainant must prove its execution.”
