https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296109 Once execution of the cheque is proved, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant and can be rebutted only on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance and dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice, while the accused led no supporting evidence and offered no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The Madras High Court held that bare suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient to displace the presumption and that revisional interference was unwarranted absent jurisdictional error. The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision dismissed. en-us Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 29 Oct 2021 12:19:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296109 Once execution of the cheque is proved, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant and can be rebutted only on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance and dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice, while the accused led no supporting evidence and offered no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The Madras High Court held that bare suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient to displace the presumption and that revisional interference was unwarranted absent jurisdictional error. The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 31 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296109