https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296108 The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted where the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the defence relied only on denial, a reply notice and oral evidence, without material showing forgery, theft or misuse. Mere denial of the debt was held insufficient to displace liability under Section 138 on a preponderance of probabilities. The lower appellate court erred in treating the defence as adequate and in interfering with the trial court's conviction. The conviction was restored, while the substantive imprisonment was reduced to two months and the compensation was maintained. en-us Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 05 Jul 2021 08:24:32 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296108 The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted where the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the defence relied only on denial, a reply notice and oral evidence, without material showing forgery, theft or misuse. Mere denial of the debt was held insufficient to displace liability under Section 138 on a preponderance of probabilities. The lower appellate court erred in treating the defence as adequate and in interfering with the trial court's conviction. The conviction was restored, while the substantive imprisonment was reduced to two months and the compensation was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 09 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296108