Documentary evidence

It is always presumed that a negotiable instrument was given for consideration and in discharge of a liability, the onus to prove otherwise is on the accused. 

But not for cash loan.

Presumption is for legal liability and first burden is on the complainant to show that the liability was or is legal than accused has right to rebut it.

Law in nothing but common sense codified in words. Simple example a person gave a cheque for liabilities of share of stolen property or drugs / illicit liquor trade and it is bounce.

Whether liability is presumed no not at all.

THE INITIAL BURDEN IS ON COMPLAINANT TO SHOW THAT IT IS LEGAL LIABILITY.

SC has generally held that the provisions of NI act are legal fiction and hence all of them have to be strictly followed .lapses on the part of complainant are fatal.

 Most of the complainants  fail to follow many imp requirements and that is why it is always simple, sure and easy for any accused of cheque case to win.

There is no such presumption of "drawn" by the accused and there is no such presumption of amount in cheque being the total due amount.

The presumption is that the " Complainant RECEIVED" the cheque for any debt or liability. So both execution and debt has to be proved by the complainant. Accused cannot say merely without proof that the cheque is not meant for the transaction(s) suggested by the complainant.