https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186775 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant failed to prove that he was the proprietor of the business concern, the payee of the cheque, the execution of the cheque, or the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Without documentary proof of proprietorship and the underlying transactions, the statutory presumption under Section 139 could not operate in his favour. The acquittal was found to rest on proper appreciation of evidence and showed no perversity, absence of evidence, or legal error warranting appellate interference, so the appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Sep 2016 06:26:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186775 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant failed to prove that he was the proprietor of the business concern, the payee of the cheque, the execution of the cheque, or the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Without documentary proof of proprietorship and the underlying transactions, the statutory presumption under Section 139 could not operate in his favour. The acquittal was found to rest on proper appreciation of evidence and showed no perversity, absence of evidence, or legal error warranting appellate interference, so the appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Jun 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=186775