https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273724 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant's proof of dishonour and assertion that the cheque was issued towards liability was sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption of debt or liability; minor uncertainty about the loan date did not defeat that case where surrounding circumstances supported the transaction. The accused's defence that the cheques were only security cheques failed because a statement under Sections 281 and 313 CrPC is not evidence and mere denial, without cogent defence evidence, cannot rebut the presumption under Section 139. The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted under Section 138, and the matter was directed to proceed on sentence. en-us Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Aug 2023 15:34:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273724 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant's proof of dishonour and assertion that the cheque was issued towards liability was sufficient to trigger the statutory presumption of debt or liability; minor uncertainty about the loan date did not defeat that case where surrounding circumstances supported the transaction. The accused's defence that the cheques were only security cheques failed because a statement under Sections 281 and 313 CrPC is not evidence and mere denial, without cogent defence evidence, cannot rebut the presumption under Section 139. The acquittal was set aside, the accused was convicted under Section 138, and the matter was directed to proceed on sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=273724