https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416127 Where the drawer admitted the cheque and signatures, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused had to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but a claim that the cheque was blank and given to a third person was not supported by cogent evidence. The complainant's failure to produce income-tax returns or a written loan document did not, on these facts, displace the statutory presumptions. In revision, interference with concurrent findings was not justified absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 22 Dec 2021 07:49:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416127 Where the drawer admitted the cheque and signatures, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The accused had to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, but a claim that the cheque was blank and given to a third person was not supported by cogent evidence. The complainant's failure to produce income-tax returns or a written loan document did not, on these facts, displace the statutory presumptions. In revision, interference with concurrent findings was not justified absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 17 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=416127