https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274199 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the lower court's judgment, convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the presumption in favor of the holder under Section 139, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused's defense that the cheque was given as security in 1999 was unsupported by evidence, leading to the restoration of the conviction and sentencing of the respondent. The court highlighted the significance of evidence and the burden of proof in cases involving negotiable instruments to uphold legal principles. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 08 Nov 2022 17:17:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274199 The Supreme Court reversed the High Court's decision and upheld the lower court's judgment, convicting the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the presumption in favor of the holder under Section 139, shifting the burden to the accused to disprove the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The accused's defense that the cheque was given as security in 1999 was unsupported by evidence, leading to the restoration of the conviction and sentencing of the respondent. The court highlighted the significance of evidence and the burden of proof in cases involving negotiable instruments to uphold legal principles. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274199