https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157135 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant establishes the foundational facts, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder and the burden shifts to the drawer to rebut them with credible evidence. Where the trial and appellate courts record concurrent findings on service of notice, the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the cheque transaction, the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 absent perversity or legal error. On the facts noted, the defence version was not substantiated and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were upheld. en-us Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Jun 2014 16:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157135 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant establishes the foundational facts, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder and the burden shifts to the drawer to rebut them with credible evidence. Where the trial and appellate courts record concurrent findings on service of notice, the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the cheque transaction, the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 absent perversity or legal error. On the facts noted, the defence version was not substantiated and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were upheld. Case-Laws Companies Law Fri, 17 Oct 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157135