https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346024 The accused rebutted the Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing a probable defence that the cheque formed part of an earlier transaction, creating doubt about the alleged hand loan. The court applied the preponderance of probabilities standard and held that this burden had been discharged. Once the presumption was rebutted, the complainant had to prove a legally enforceable debt with acceptable evidence, but failed to produce supporting account books, vouchers, or other reliable proof. An adverse inference was drawn against the complainant, and the conviction under Section 138 could not be sustained. en-us Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Aug 2017 07:15:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346024 The accused rebutted the Section 139 presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by showing a probable defence that the cheque formed part of an earlier transaction, creating doubt about the alleged hand loan. The court applied the preponderance of probabilities standard and held that this burden had been discharged. Once the presumption was rebutted, the complainant had to prove a legally enforceable debt with acceptable evidence, but failed to produce supporting account books, vouchers, or other reliable proof. An adverse inference was drawn against the complainant, and the conviction under Section 138 could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 May 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=346024