https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417091 Admission of the cheque and signatures attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused was required to rebut them by a probable defence on the balance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the loan amount differed was unsupported by cogent material, so the conviction and sentence were not disturbed in revision. The legal notice was also held to be within the one-month statutory period, as it was issued on the thirtieth day after receipt of dishonour information. Concurrent findings were therefore left undisturbed. en-us Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 15 Jan 2022 08:48:26 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417091 Admission of the cheque and signatures attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused was required to rebut them by a probable defence on the balance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the loan amount differed was unsupported by cogent material, so the conviction and sentence were not disturbed in revision. The legal notice was also held to be within the one-month statutory period, as it was issued on the thirtieth day after receipt of dishonour information. Concurrent findings were therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 23 Sep 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417091