Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s.138 & ss.118, 139 – Respondent purchased apple crops of various growers which was carried out through ropeway to the roadhead for further transportation – Packing material was procured by the respondent through his authorised agent on credit basis from the appellant – Accounts finally settled between the appellant and the respondent’s authorised agent and Rs.5,38,856/- was found recoverable – Cheque issued – Dishonoured– Complaint filed by the appellant – Dismissed – Upheld by the High Court – On appeal, held: Dishonour of cheque carries a statutory presumption of consideration – Holder of cheque in due course is required to prove that the cheque was issued by the accused and that when the same presented, it was not honoured – Since there is statutory presumption of consideration, the burden is on the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability – In the present case, once the agent of the respondent admitted the settlement of due amount, in absence of any other evidence the Trial Court or the High Court could not dismiss the complaint only on account of discrepancies in the cartons, packing material or the rate to determine the total liability, as if the appellant was proving his debt before the Civil Court, when the written document crystalized the amount due – Respondent failed to lead any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption, a finding returned by both the Trial Court and the High Court –Therefore, it is presumed that the cheques in question were drawn for consideration and the appellant received the same in discharge of an existing debt – Respondent guilty of dishonour of cheque for an offence u/s.138 – Order passed by the High Court, set aside – Respondent to pay Rs.10,77,712/- as fine i.e. twice of the amount of cheque of Rs.5,38,856/- and litigation cost of Rs.1,00,000/- within three months – In case of failure to pay the same, the respondent to undergo imprisonment for six months – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313.