https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333495 Admitted signature on a cheque triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability; the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, and the security-cheque and discharge defences remained unsupported. The complainant had proved the loan transaction, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, and non-payment. In revision, the HC emphasised that concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts are not to be reappreciated unless illegality, impropriety, or perversity is shown. As no such infirmity was demonstrated, interference with the conviction and sentence under Section 138 was refused. en-us Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Oct 2016 10:59:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333495 Admitted signature on a cheque triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability; the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, and the security-cheque and discharge defences remained unsupported. The complainant had proved the loan transaction, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, and non-payment. In revision, the HC emphasised that concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts are not to be reappreciated unless illegality, impropriety, or perversity is shown. As no such infirmity was demonstrated, interference with the conviction and sentence under Section 138 was refused. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=333495