https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408395 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence, given the accused's double presumption of innocence. Applying that standard, the court found the complainant had not proved execution and delivery of the cheque with convincing evidence, and material discrepancies weakened the version of borrowal. The supporting witnesses did not reliably establish the transaction, including because presence at the relevant time was not consistently shown and one witness was interested. The accused raised a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, rebutting the Section 139 presumption, so the acquittal was not disturbed. en-us Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Jun 2021 09:26:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408395 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court will interfere only if the trial court's view is perverse, clearly unreasonable, or contrary to the evidence, given the accused's double presumption of innocence. Applying that standard, the court found the complainant had not proved execution and delivery of the cheque with convincing evidence, and material discrepancies weakened the version of borrowal. The supporting witnesses did not reliably establish the transaction, including because presence at the relevant time was not consistently shown and one witness was interested. The accused raised a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, rebutting the Section 139 presumption, so the acquittal was not disturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 24 Mar 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=408395