https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288962 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, a witness with personal knowledge of the transaction is competent to depose even if he cannot answer collateral questions. Once execution of the cheque is proved, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies and the accused must raise a probable defence; the complainant is not automatically required to prove source of funds. A cheque is not shown to be issued for a time-barred debt merely because limitation is alleged, and an argument based on undisclosed funds or Section 23 of the Contract Act does not defeat liability where the debt is otherwise established. Concurrent findings fastening direct and vicarious liability on the trust-related accused were left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 08 Jul 2020 10:59:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288962 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, a witness with personal knowledge of the transaction is competent to depose even if he cannot answer collateral questions. Once execution of the cheque is proved, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applies and the accused must raise a probable defence; the complainant is not automatically required to prove source of funds. A cheque is not shown to be issued for a time-barred debt merely because limitation is alleged, and an argument based on undisclosed funds or Section 23 of the Contract Act does not defeat liability where the debt is otherwise established. Concurrent findings fastening direct and vicarious liability on the trust-related accused were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Jul 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=288962