https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285547 In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, once the complainant proves issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, and service of notice followed by non-payment, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are rebuttable, but the accused must produce material making the non-existence of debt or liability reasonably probable; a bare denial is insufficient. On the facts, the evidence of a hand loan, the dishonoured cheque, and the accused's failure to reply to the demand notice or promptly challenge alleged misuse supported the complainant. The defence failed to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, and liability under Section 138 was sustained. en-us Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Jan 2020 10:45:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285547 In a prosecution for cheque dishonour, once the complainant proves issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, and service of notice followed by non-payment, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise in favour of the holder. Those presumptions are rebuttable, but the accused must produce material making the non-existence of debt or liability reasonably probable; a bare denial is insufficient. On the facts, the evidence of a hand loan, the dishonoured cheque, and the accused's failure to reply to the demand notice or promptly challenge alleged misuse supported the complainant. The defence failed to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, and liability under Section 138 was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285547