Security cheque...

It is B's burden to prove that the cheque was issued for security purpose only

If accused has standard receipt for the issuing the cheques, and on that particular day he is not in your debt. The cheque in question must be treated as issued for other purpose than for 'legal or other debt'. In my opinion there is no 138.

Originally posted by : T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
	It is B's burden to prove that the cheque was issued for security purpose only

 Yes once the cheque is issued the burden is on the accused to prove that it was not far legal liability.

If the accused claims it was for any other liability than which liability and still why it bounced.

Story of the complainant is doubtful... Advance Payment on 24.05  for 26.07 ?? What kind of advance is this..  Based on whatever brief you have stated here, the accused must come out safe. The court is bound to ask 1. Why the work executed without realising the advance cheque ? How come advance cheque is PDC of 2 months ? How come work was finished before the date of advance cheque ? Why the cheque was deposited even after 2 months of execution ?

Let us understand that the S.138 is applicable for certain cheques issued in discharge of any subsisting debt.... A PDC given for a subsisting debt also falls in this category.  In business parlance as far as advance cheque is concerned it must be realised before the execution of the work, and in general advance cheques are not PDCs of such prolonged dates... 

There is a misconception that complainant is not required to prove anything, it is the lawful requirement that complainant proves the liability reasonably, then only onus of disproving the liability comes on accused. If complainant is not required to establish his case then mere possession of blank signed cheque will nail the drawer !!