https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285517 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Once execution of the cheque is shown, Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities without entering the witness box, including by relying on the complainant's own evidence and surrounding circumstances. Here, the cheque particulars were not shown to have been written by the accused, the source of the alleged liability was not satisfactorily proved, and there was no supporting documentary evidence of the transaction or authority to fill the cheque. The presumption was therefore rebutted and interference with the acquittal was not warranted. en-us Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 16 Jan 2020 11:00:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285517 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must prove that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Once execution of the cheque is shown, Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption in favour of the holder, but the accused may rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities without entering the witness box, including by relying on the complainant's own evidence and surrounding circumstances. Here, the cheque particulars were not shown to have been written by the accused, the source of the alleged liability was not satisfactorily proved, and there was no supporting documentary evidence of the transaction or authority to fill the cheque. The presumption was therefore rebutted and interference with the acquittal was not warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285517