https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388121 Execution of the cheque having been admitted, the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused was required to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. The cheque dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, while the defence of police pressure was unsupported by cogent evidence and did not displace the complainant's case of legally enforceable liability. On that footing, the ingredients of section 138 remained established and no interference in revision was warranted. en-us Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 08 Nov 2019 09:33:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388121 Execution of the cheque having been admitted, the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused was required to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. The cheque dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, while the defence of police pressure was unsupported by cogent evidence and did not displace the complainant's case of legally enforceable liability. On that footing, the ingredients of section 138 remained established and no interference in revision was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 30 Oct 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=388121