https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401710 The complainant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 because he did not establish a legally enforceable debt or liability arising from any transaction with the accused. His evidence showed that he was not the original party to the underlying property transaction, the alleged agreements were not produced, and the accused were strangers to him before execution of the sale deed. The cheques had originally been issued in connection with a different transaction, and the complainant had inserted his name as payee. On these facts, the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted, and the acquittal was upheld without interference. en-us Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:35:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401710 The complainant failed to prove the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 because he did not establish a legally enforceable debt or liability arising from any transaction with the accused. His evidence showed that he was not the original party to the underlying property transaction, the alleged agreements were not produced, and the accused were strangers to him before execution of the sale deed. The cheques had originally been issued in connection with a different transaction, and the complainant had inserted his name as payee. On these facts, the presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted, and the acquittal was upheld without interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 22 Sep 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=401710