TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the complainant proved the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumption arising in respect of the cheque transaction.
Analysis: The complaint was based on an alleged loan, issuance of cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and notice, but the evidence did not satisfactorily establish the foundational facts. The complainant failed to prove the date and place of borrowal, the source and financial capacity to advance the amount, and the supporting circumstances for the alleged loan. The defence evidence showed that the complainant's husband had earlier handled the company accounts and the accused's version of misuse of cheque was found probable. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was treated as rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities.
Conclusion: The complainant did not prove the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the acquittal recorded by the appellate court was upheld.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the complainant must establish the foundational facts necessary to attract the statutory presumption, and the accused may rebut that presumption by showing a probable defence on the basis of the evidence as a whole.
TaxTMI 
