https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299801 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the cheque holder, including as to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused can rebut that presumption only on a preponderance of probabilities. On the stated evidence, the signed cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the defence of loss of a blank signed cheque was found improbable, supported by the absence of any prompt complaint to the bank or police. The presumption was therefore not rebutted, liability stood proved, and the acquittal was held unsustainable; conviction under Section 138 was warranted. en-us Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 Dec 2021 08:30:38 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299801 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the cheque holder, including as to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused can rebut that presumption only on a preponderance of probabilities. On the stated evidence, the signed cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the defence of loss of a blank signed cheque was found improbable, supported by the absence of any prompt complaint to the bank or police. The presumption was therefore not rebutted, liability stood proved, and the acquittal was held unsustainable; conviction under Section 138 was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 17 Sep 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=299801