https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415468 In a cheque dishonour dispute under the NI Act, the complainant must first prove a legally enforceable debt; where specific transaction evidence is lacking, the claim fails. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable, and the accused may discharge that burden on a preponderance of probabilities by showing facts such as closure of the account before cheque presentation. Once rebutted, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove liability. The text also states that appellate interference with acquittal is limited to cases of manifest illegality or perversity, reflecting the double presumption of innocence. en-us Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 06 Dec 2021 18:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415468 In a cheque dishonour dispute under the NI Act, the complainant must first prove a legally enforceable debt; where specific transaction evidence is lacking, the claim fails. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 are rebuttable, and the accused may discharge that burden on a preponderance of probabilities by showing facts such as closure of the account before cheque presentation. Once rebutted, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove liability. The text also states that appellate interference with acquittal is limited to cases of manifest illegality or perversity, reflecting the double presumption of innocence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 26 Nov 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415468