https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400676 Admission of the cheque and the petitioner's signature attracted the presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The asserted defences that the cheque was given to another person, misused later, and that the account had already been closed were rejected because they were unsupported by reliable evidence and did not rebut the statutory presumption. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity also failed, as the presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted. In revision, the HC found no perversity, illegality, or impropriety in the concurrent findings and upheld the conviction and sentence. en-us Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Nov 2020 08:45:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400676 Admission of the cheque and the petitioner's signature attracted the presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The asserted defences that the cheque was given to another person, misused later, and that the account had already been closed were rejected because they were unsupported by reliable evidence and did not rebut the statutory presumption. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity also failed, as the presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted. In revision, the HC found no perversity, illegality, or impropriety in the concurrent findings and upheld the conviction and sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Nov 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=400676