https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162180 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and the accused need only raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the defence was supported by surrounding transaction circumstances, contemporaneous documents, and defence testimony, so the trial court treated the presumption as displaced and held that the complainant had not independently proved the debt. The High Court reversed that acquittal without adequately addressing the trial court's reasoning, but an appellate court should not interfere where two views are possible unless the acquittal is perverse. The conviction was therefore set aside. en-us Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 03 Apr 2020 17:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162180 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are rebuttable, and the accused need only raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the defence was supported by surrounding transaction circumstances, contemporaneous documents, and defence testimony, so the trial court treated the presumption as displaced and held that the complainant had not independently proved the debt. The High Court reversed that acquittal without adequately addressing the trial court's reasoning, but an appellate court should not interfere where two views are possible unless the acquittal is perverse. The conviction was therefore set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=162180