https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417339 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that a statutory notice need not set out complete transaction details, and a cheque remains proved despite different inks or handwriting where the signature is admitted. It also accepted that a power of attorney holder may testify where authority is admitted and sufficient knowledge of the transaction is shown. However, ledger entries and the unexplained claim for 24% interest created serious doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, so the presumption under Section 139 was rebutted. In the absence of exceptional grounds, appellate interference with the acquittal was unwarranted, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 08:50:22 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417339 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that a statutory notice need not set out complete transaction details, and a cheque remains proved despite different inks or handwriting where the signature is admitted. It also accepted that a power of attorney holder may testify where authority is admitted and sufficient knowledge of the transaction is shown. However, ledger entries and the unexplained claim for 24% interest created serious doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, so the presumption under Section 139 was rebutted. In the absence of exceptional grounds, appellate interference with the acquittal was unwarranted, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417339