10. It is true that there is a presumption in favour of the second respondent-complainant under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that the said cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability, but the presumption is rebuttalble presumption and the accused can rebut the presumption either by adducing positive evidence or basing on the material available on record such as the averments in the complaint and the evidence of the witnesses examined by the prosecution. In the instant case, in the complaint itself it was mentioned that the said cheque was issued towards security for the loan borrowed. PW.1 also stated in his deposition that the cheque was issued as security towards loan borrowed by the revision petitioner. When a cheque was issued as security, the revision petitioner/accused is not liable for prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act despite the fact that it was dishonoured. Further, the second respondent did not adduce any evidence in proof of the fact that the revision petitioner borrowed Rs.1,50,000/- from him. One Prakash Jain, who was allegedly present at the time of borrowing the amount by the revision petitioner from the second respondent was cited in the complaint as witness, but was not examined by the second respondent. Due to his non-examination, an adverse inference against the case of the second respondent can be drawn. Further, it is highly unconvincing to state that on the date of borrowing amount of Rs.1,50,000/- itself, the
