https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405579 Cheques dishonour liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not arise because the complainant failed to prove the foundational facts for Sections 118 and 139 to operate. Although the drawer admitted the cheques and signatures, the evidence indicated that the cheques were obtained long before presentation, the complaint lacked particulars of the underlying transaction, and the cheques were not shown to have been presented within the statutory validity period. The defence that they were issued as security remained probable on the evidence. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 23 Mar 2021 08:43:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405579 Cheques dishonour liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act did not arise because the complainant failed to prove the foundational facts for Sections 118 and 139 to operate. Although the drawer admitted the cheques and signatures, the evidence indicated that the cheques were obtained long before presentation, the complaint lacked particulars of the underlying transaction, and the cheques were not shown to have been presented within the statutory validity period. The defence that they were issued as security remained probable on the evidence. The acquittal was therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 18 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=405579