https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402209 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admitted issuance and signature on the cheque triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, but the claim that the cheque was a blank security instrument in a chit transaction, that the complainant lacked capacity, and that payment had already been made was not supported by cogent evidence. The court held that the trial court wrongly insisted on additional documents and source-of-funds proof despite the statutory presumption, and found the defence evidence inconsistent and unconvincing. The acquittal was therefore held to be illegal and perverse. en-us Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 26 Dec 2020 10:43:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402209 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admitted issuance and signature on the cheque triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, but the claim that the cheque was a blank security instrument in a chit transaction, that the complainant lacked capacity, and that payment had already been made was not supported by cogent evidence. The court held that the trial court wrongly insisted on additional documents and source-of-funds proof despite the statutory presumption, and found the defence evidence inconsistent and unconvincing. The acquittal was therefore held to be illegal and perverse. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 23 Dec 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=402209