beginning the respondent stated that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt and there is a presumption under Section 139 of Negotiable Instruments Act. When the said cheque was issued the Court shall presume that it was issued towards discharge of legally enforceable debt, till it is rebutted by eliciting anything in the cross examination or by examining any independent witness. Thus, the petitioner did not explain the reason of failure to put such question with regard to the debt. At the initial stage of cross examination, PW.1 made a bald allegation that on scrutiny the petitioner is required to put certain questions to the witness. At the same time, the petitioner contends that there was relationship between them as employer and employee, but questions were not put in the cross examination of PW.1 and no reasons were assigned why those questions were not put to PW.1 and even the petitioner did not issue any reply notice to the notice issued by the respondent in compliance of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and having maintained silence for all these years invented a story of relationship of employee and employer suddenly as if he verified the material when the matter was posted for defence evidence and entitled to receive amount as he did not work during the particular period. But these questions were not germane to decide the issue before the Court.
