https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389219 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC arising from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's view was supported by omissions in the complainant's evidence, unexplained delay in presenting the cheque, and defence evidence backed by documents and oral testimony. The HC reiterated the double presumption in favour of the accused after acquittal and held that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, interference is unwarranted. The acquittal was therefore not shown to be illegal, improper, or contrary to law, and was upheld. en-us Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 04 Dec 2019 10:42:46 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389219 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 378 CrPC arising from a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court's view was supported by omissions in the complainant's evidence, unexplained delay in presenting the cheque, and defence evidence backed by documents and oral testimony. The HC reiterated the double presumption in favour of the accused after acquittal and held that where two reasonable views are possible on the evidence, interference is unwarranted. The acquittal was therefore not shown to be illegal, improper, or contrary to law, and was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 20 Nov 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=389219