https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298871 Execution of the cheque was admitted, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused's defence that the cheque had been issued to a third party was found unsupported by contemporaneous complaint, notice, or other steps, and was inconsistent on material particulars; the complainant's financial capacity was also not disproved. Applying the preponderance of probability standard, the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and no perversity or illegality was found in the concurrent findings. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and revision was rejected. en-us Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Nov 2021 07:55:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298871 Execution of the cheque was admitted, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused's defence that the cheque had been issued to a third party was found unsupported by contemporaneous complaint, notice, or other steps, and was inconsistent on material particulars; the complainant's financial capacity was also not disproved. Applying the preponderance of probability standard, the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and no perversity or illegality was found in the concurrent findings. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and revision was rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 27 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298871