https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369894 The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's acquittal and restoring the trial court's judgment convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that in cheque bouncing cases, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove absence of debt or liability, which the accused failed to do by not presenting sufficient evidence. The court highlighted the evidentiary value of documents and the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act. The accused was directed to deposit the cheque amount and compensation to the complainant by a specified date to avoid imprisonment. en-us Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Nov 2018 11:26:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369894 The High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the lower appellate court's acquittal and restoring the trial court's judgment convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized that in cheque bouncing cases, the burden of proof shifts to the accused to prove absence of debt or liability, which the accused failed to do by not presenting sufficient evidence. The court highlighted the evidentiary value of documents and the presumption in favor of the holder of a cheque under Sections 138 and 139 of the NI Act. The accused was directed to deposit the cheque amount and compensation to the complainant by a specified date to avoid imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 29 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=369894