https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285973 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption under Section 139 remained rebuttable and the complainant still had to prove the foundational facts with reliable evidence. The record was found incomplete because the contract note was not properly proved, the statement of accounts lacked supporting proof from the original books or the respondent's signature, and the bank manager was not examined on dishonour and account status. Given the disputed cheque particulars and the nature of the derivative and share transactions, fuller evidence was required, so the concurrent appreciation of evidence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. en-us Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 05 Feb 2020 16:33:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285973 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption under Section 139 remained rebuttable and the complainant still had to prove the foundational facts with reliable evidence. The record was found incomplete because the contract note was not properly proved, the statement of accounts lacked supporting proof from the original books or the respondent's signature, and the bank manager was not examined on dishonour and account status. Given the disputed cheque particulars and the nature of the derivative and share transactions, fuller evidence was required, so the concurrent appreciation of evidence was set aside and the matter remanded for fresh disposal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=285973