https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415206 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to prove execution and issuance of the cheque to activate the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. The accused rebutted those presumptions by raising a consistent defence that the cheque was issued as security for a different transaction, supported by cross-examination, oral evidence, and documents, and discharged the burden on a preponderance of probabilities. As the defence made the complainant's version improbable and two views were possible on the record, interference with the acquittal was unwarranted because an appellate court acts only where the acquittal is perverse or unsupported by evidence. en-us Wed, 17 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 30 Nov 2021 08:30:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415206 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant had to prove execution and issuance of the cheque to activate the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. The accused rebutted those presumptions by raising a consistent defence that the cheque was issued as security for a different transaction, supported by cross-examination, oral evidence, and documents, and discharged the burden on a preponderance of probabilities. As the defence made the complainant's version improbable and two views were possible on the record, interference with the acquittal was unwarranted because an appellate court acts only where the acquittal is perverse or unsupported by evidence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 17 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415206