https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415202 Once execution of the cheque was admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability. The drawer had to rebut that presumption with a probable defence supported by cogent material; mere denial or an unsupported plea of misuse of a blank cheque was insufficient. The cheque, signature, dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, and the presumption remained unrebutted. In revision, interference was also limited because the HC would not reappreciate evidence as a second appellate court unless a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice was shown. Conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:30:49 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415202 Once execution of the cheque was admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability. The drawer had to rebut that presumption with a probable defence supported by cogent material; mere denial or an unsupported plea of misuse of a blank cheque was insufficient. The cheque, signature, dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, and the presumption remained unrebutted. In revision, interference was also limited because the HC would not reappreciate evidence as a second appellate court unless a glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice was shown. Conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 11 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415202