https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399931 Admission of the cheque and the accused's signature triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, and the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence; the revisional court therefore found no perversity or illegality warranting interference. Service of the demand notice was also proved because it was sent to the admitted address and the postal acknowledgment bore the accused's signature, with no convincing explanation for the alleged misuse. In these circumstances, the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the revision petition failed. en-us Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 23 Oct 2020 14:45:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399931 Admission of the cheque and the accused's signature triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, and the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence; the revisional court therefore found no perversity or illegality warranting interference. Service of the demand notice was also proved because it was sent to the admitted address and the postal acknowledgment bore the accused's signature, with no convincing explanation for the alleged misuse. In these circumstances, the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the revision petition failed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Oct 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=399931