https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365025 In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a power of attorney holder may depose only if he witnessed the transaction or otherwise has due knowledge of it. Here, the authorised representative admitted ignorance of the loan transaction and gave a version inconsistent with the complainant's case, while the promissory note created doubt about the date and quantum of the alleged debt. On these facts, the complainant failed to prove cheque liability by cogent evidence, and the acquittal was found legally justified with no interference called for. en-us Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 09 Aug 2018 07:28:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365025 In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a power of attorney holder may depose only if he witnessed the transaction or otherwise has due knowledge of it. Here, the authorised representative admitted ignorance of the loan transaction and gave a version inconsistent with the complainant's case, while the promissory note created doubt about the date and quantum of the alleged debt. On these facts, the complainant failed to prove cheque liability by cogent evidence, and the acquittal was found legally justified with no interference called for. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 16 Jul 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=365025