https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299421 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not barred for want of a money-lending licence because an advance founded on a negotiable instrument is excluded from the Bombay Money Lenders Act definition of loan, so the licence-based dismissal provision did not apply. On the dishonour charge, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were rebuttable; the accused produced material showing the cheque and vouchers were earlier given as security, and the complainant's evidence contained inconsistencies on the loan transaction and payment details. On the totality of the evidence, a probable defence was made out and the complainant did not prove a legally enforceable debt, so interference with the acquittal was unwarranted. en-us Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 14 Dec 2021 11:56:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299421 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not barred for want of a money-lending licence because an advance founded on a negotiable instrument is excluded from the Bombay Money Lenders Act definition of loan, so the licence-based dismissal provision did not apply. On the dishonour charge, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were rebuttable; the accused produced material showing the cheque and vouchers were earlier given as security, and the complainant's evidence contained inconsistencies on the loan transaction and payment details. On the totality of the evidence, a probable defence was made out and the complainant did not prove a legally enforceable debt, so interference with the acquittal was unwarranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Feb 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299421