https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411248 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 arose because the cheque and signature were undisputed. The accused rebutted that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by showing a probable defence that the cheque related to furniture work and that a later cheque for a lesser amount had been encashed. The complainant then had to independently prove a legally enforceable debt, but failed because of material omissions, inconsistencies, and unreliable supporting evidence. The acquittal was therefore justified and no interference was warranted. en-us Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Aug 2021 08:08:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411248 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Section 139 arose because the cheque and signature were undisputed. The accused rebutted that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities by showing a probable defence that the cheque related to furniture work and that a later cheque for a lesser amount had been encashed. The complainant then had to independently prove a legally enforceable debt, but failed because of material omissions, inconsistencies, and unreliable supporting evidence. The acquittal was therefore justified and no interference was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 11 Aug 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=411248