https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295262 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant must first establish foundational facts showing a legally enforceable debt or liability before the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including through material already on record, and a probable defence can shift the burden back to the complainant. The Court noted serious doubts over the alleged loan transaction, the complainant's financial capacity, the supporting witness's credibility, the unexplained absence of accounts and income tax returns, and the possibility that blank signed cheques were misused. It also treated the alleged cash advance as inconsistent with section 269-SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld the acquittal. en-us Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 26 May 2021 12:49:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295262 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant must first establish foundational facts showing a legally enforceable debt or liability before the presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arises. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including through material already on record, and a probable defence can shift the burden back to the complainant. The Court noted serious doubts over the alleged loan transaction, the complainant's financial capacity, the supporting witness's credibility, the unexplained absence of accounts and income tax returns, and the possibility that blank signed cheques were misused. It also treated the alleged cash advance as inconsistent with section 269-SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and upheld the acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Feb 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295262