https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157148 SC allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and remanded direction that the High Court should have entertained the revision. The court held the lower courts erred in treating Section 139 as creating a mandatory presumption of debt that could only be rebutted by the accused testifying; that approach misapplied Sections 118(b) and 139 and improperly shifted the burden. On the facts, the defence evidence (including cheque counterfoil material) was not properly assessed, so the convictions could not stand. en-us Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 12 Sep 2025 11:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157148 SC allowed the appeal, set aside the convictions and sentences, and remanded direction that the High Court should have entertained the revision. The court held the lower courts erred in treating Section 139 as creating a mandatory presumption of debt that could only be rebutted by the accused testifying; that approach misapplied Sections 118(b) and 139 and improperly shifted the burden. On the facts, the defence evidence (including cheque counterfoil material) was not properly assessed, so the convictions could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 11 Jan 2008 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=157148