https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395634 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, admitted cheque signature and dishonour raise presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, but the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by showing that no legally enforceable debt existed. The Court treated inconsistencies in the complainant's version, the unexplained source of funds, absence of bank withdrawal or accounting entry, and non-examination of a material witness as factors weakening proof of liability. Violation of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act was not a defence by itself, but it was relevant to credibility. The presumptions were rebutted and the conviction could not be sustained. en-us Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 01 Jun 2020 09:40:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395634 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, admitted cheque signature and dishonour raise presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, but the accused may rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by showing that no legally enforceable debt existed. The Court treated inconsistencies in the complainant's version, the unexplained source of funds, absence of bank withdrawal or accounting entry, and non-examination of a material witness as factors weakening proof of liability. Violation of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act was not a defence by itself, but it was relevant to credibility. The presumptions were rebutted and the conviction could not be sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 May 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=395634