https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274094 Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability, but once the accused rebuts that presumption the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt. Here, the accused's contemporaneous denial and the complaint's vague allegations, lacking particulars of the alleged debt, dates, interest, and basis of the amount claimed, were found insufficient to establish the transaction. The complainant's shifting testimony did not supply the missing foundational facts. The result stated in the text is that the presumption was treated as rebutted and the ingredients of Section 138 were not proved, making conviction and sentence unsustainable. en-us Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 28 Jul 2018 10:12:05 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274094 Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raises a rebuttable presumption that a cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or liability, but once the accused rebuts that presumption the complainant must prove a legally enforceable debt. Here, the accused's contemporaneous denial and the complaint's vague allegations, lacking particulars of the alleged debt, dates, interest, and basis of the amount claimed, were found insufficient to establish the transaction. The complainant's shifting testimony did not supply the missing foundational facts. The result stated in the text is that the presumption was treated as rebutted and the ingredients of Section 138 were not proved, making conviction and sentence unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 06 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274094