https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384059 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant's oral evidence and the accused's signature on the cheque were treated as sufficient to prove execution and delivery, particularly where the accused gave no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The trial court's reliance on minor discrepancies was rejected as insufficient to discredit the complainant. Once execution was established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated, and the accused had to rebut it by evidence or acceptable probabilities. As no supporting evidence was produced for the defence version, the presumption remained unrebutted and acquittal could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Aug 2019 06:35:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384059 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant's oral evidence and the accused's signature on the cheque were treated as sufficient to prove execution and delivery, particularly where the accused gave no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The trial court's reliance on minor discrepancies was rejected as insufficient to discredit the complainant. Once execution was established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated, and the accused had to rebut it by evidence or acceptable probabilities. As no supporting evidence was produced for the defence version, the presumption remained unrebutted and acquittal could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Aug 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=384059