https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398096 In a prosecution for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the special evidentiary scheme prevailed over the general proof requirements of the Evidence Act. The High Court noted that Section 146 raises a presumption of dishonour when the bank slip or memo bears the official mark, so the return memo could not be rejected merely for not being proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act. As the accused's liability had already been found on the material before the trial court and that finding was not challenged, the dishonour and ingredients of the offence stood proved, and the dismissal of the complaint was held unsustainable. en-us Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 07 Sep 2020 10:09:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398096 In a prosecution for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the special evidentiary scheme prevailed over the general proof requirements of the Evidence Act. The High Court noted that Section 146 raises a presumption of dishonour when the bank slip or memo bears the official mark, so the return memo could not be rejected merely for not being proved under Section 67 of the Evidence Act. As the accused's liability had already been found on the material before the trial court and that finding was not challenged, the dishonour and ingredients of the offence stood proved, and the dismissal of the complaint was held unsustainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 26 Aug 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=398096