https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341446 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a company may act through an authorised representative, but that witness must have personal knowledge of the transaction or other due knowledge; mere authority is not enough where cross-examination shows only document-based awareness. Once the accused raises a probable defence, the complainant must prove the subsisting legally enforceable debt with reliable evidence. Here, the defence of blank security cheques and the mismatch with the firm's later corporate form shifted the burden back, yet the complainant failed to produce supporting invoices, correspondence, or properly proved account records. The computer-generated statement was not proved in compliance with the evidence law, so the debt was not established and the conviction could not stand. en-us Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 10 Apr 2017 10:20:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341446 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, a company may act through an authorised representative, but that witness must have personal knowledge of the transaction or other due knowledge; mere authority is not enough where cross-examination shows only document-based awareness. Once the accused raises a probable defence, the complainant must prove the subsisting legally enforceable debt with reliable evidence. Here, the defence of blank security cheques and the mismatch with the firm's later corporate form shifted the burden back, yet the complainant failed to produce supporting invoices, correspondence, or properly proved account records. The computer-generated statement was not proved in compliance with the evidence law, so the debt was not established and the conviction could not stand. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 14 Mar 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=341446