https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413708 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of every statutory ingredient: cheque drawal, timely presentation, dishonour, issue of a written demand notice within the prescribed period, and failure to pay after service of notice. The analysis notes that although dishonour of the cheques was shown, the legal notice was not exhibited and there was no evidence of its dispatch date or actual, or deemed, service; a postal receipt alone was insufficient. The Section 139 presumption in favour of the cheque holder did not cure the absence of proof of notice compliance. On that basis, the conviction was held unsustainable and was set aside. en-us Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Oct 2021 15:00:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413708 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of every statutory ingredient: cheque drawal, timely presentation, dishonour, issue of a written demand notice within the prescribed period, and failure to pay after service of notice. The analysis notes that although dishonour of the cheques was shown, the legal notice was not exhibited and there was no evidence of its dispatch date or actual, or deemed, service; a postal receipt alone was insufficient. The Section 139 presumption in favour of the cheque holder did not cure the absence of proof of notice compliance. On that basis, the conviction was held unsustainable and was set aside. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 01 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=413708