https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409590 The court discussed prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 arising from admitted cheque execution and signature. It held that the complainant had to establish a legally recoverable debt, and that the presumption could be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence, the alleged cash loan was not supported by material showing financial capacity or the stated source of funds, and cross-examination created serious doubt about the transaction. The presumption was treated as rebutted, the debt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jul 2021 10:33:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409590 The court discussed prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 arising from admitted cheque execution and signature. It held that the complainant had to establish a legally recoverable debt, and that the presumption could be displaced on a preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence, the alleged cash loan was not supported by material showing financial capacity or the stated source of funds, and cross-examination created serious doubt about the transaction. The presumption was treated as rebutted, the debt was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 28 Jun 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=409590