https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296305 A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid even when issued through an authorised advocate and not signed personally by the complainant, since the statute requires a written demand and the object of notice would be defeated by insisting on the complainant's signature. On the merits, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated once execution of the cheques and dishonour were proved, and the accused failed to rebut them with a credible probable defence; unsupported cash-payment assertions and inconsistent surrounding records were insufficient. The acquittal was set aside and conviction under Section 138 followed. en-us Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 14 Jul 2021 06:25:01 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296305 A demand notice under Section 138(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held valid even when issued through an authorised advocate and not signed personally by the complainant, since the statute requires a written demand and the object of notice would be defeated by insisting on the complainant's signature. On the merits, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated once execution of the cheques and dishonour were proved, and the accused failed to rebut them with a credible probable defence; unsupported cash-payment assertions and inconsistent surrounding records were insufficient. The acquittal was set aside and conviction under Section 138 followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Aug 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=296305