https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367260 Material contradictions in the complainant's evidence on the loan, cheque issuance and supporting documents created serious doubt about the prosecution version under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The inconsistencies, including the unexplained differences in the cheque particulars, displaced the statutory presumptions and prevented proof of a legally enforceable debt or the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the HC held that interference is justified only where the trial view is unreasonable or perverse; because the acquittal was based on a plausible assessment of the evidence, it was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 18 Sep 2018 08:01:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367260 Material contradictions in the complainant's evidence on the loan, cheque issuance and supporting documents created serious doubt about the prosecution version under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The inconsistencies, including the unexplained differences in the cheque particulars, displaced the statutory presumptions and prevented proof of a legally enforceable debt or the offence beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the HC held that interference is justified only where the trial view is unreasonable or perverse; because the acquittal was based on a plausible assessment of the evidence, it was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=367260