https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397989 Where the cheque and signature were admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the cheque holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by cogent evidence or material circumstances. The defence that the cheque was issued only as security for an earlier transaction was unsupported by documents, the reply notice was unsubstantiated, cross-examination yielded nothing material, and the accused did not enter the witness box. Mere denial was held insufficient to displace the presumptions, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld. en-us Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 04 Sep 2020 11:10:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397989 Where the cheque and signature were admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the cheque holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by cogent evidence or material circumstances. The defence that the cheque was issued only as security for an earlier transaction was unsupported by documents, the reply notice was unsubstantiated, cross-examination yielded nothing material, and the accused did not enter the witness box. Mere denial was held insufficient to displace the presumptions, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Feb 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=397989