https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300278 Where the cheque and signatures were admitted, dishonour twice for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and non-payment triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the cheque holder. The accused's plea that the cheque was issued to a third person and that the complainant lacked financial capacity was unsupported by evidence, and cross-examination did not establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probability. The concurrent conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 20 Jan 2022 20:31:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300278 Where the cheque and signatures were admitted, dishonour twice for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and non-payment triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the cheque holder. The accused's plea that the cheque was issued to a third person and that the complainant lacked financial capacity was unsupported by evidence, and cross-examination did not establish a probable defence on a preponderance of probability. The concurrent conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Apr 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=300278