https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391134 In a challenge to acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court reiterated that presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and that the accused may displace them on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt because no documentary proof of the alleged loan was produced, the claimed cash payments were inconsistent, and the surrounding circumstances supported a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security. Once the presumptions were rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also accepted the trial court's reliance on notice and postal records and found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. en-us Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 21 Jan 2020 08:14:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391134 In a challenge to acquittal under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court reiterated that presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable and that the accused may displace them on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt because no documentary proof of the alleged loan was produced, the claimed cash payments were inconsistent, and the surrounding circumstances supported a probable defence that the cheque was issued as security. Once the presumptions were rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who did not prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The court also accepted the trial court's reliance on notice and postal records and found no perversity in the appreciation of evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=391134