https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417540 The accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Material inconsistencies in the complainant's case on the loan transaction, payment date, employment arrangement, and enhanced liability weakened the prosecution. The accused denied execution of the cheque, relied on a prior stop-payment instruction after loss of cheque leaves, and supported that defence with bank evidence, creating doubt about execution itself. Even assuming execution, the complainant failed to prove the alleged additional expense component. Applying the limited appellate interference standard in acquittal matters, the trial court's view was found reasonable and the acquittal was maintained. en-us Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 21 Jan 2022 16:43:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417540 The accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. Material inconsistencies in the complainant's case on the loan transaction, payment date, employment arrangement, and enhanced liability weakened the prosecution. The accused denied execution of the cheque, relied on a prior stop-payment instruction after loss of cheque leaves, and supported that defence with bank evidence, creating doubt about execution itself. Even assuming execution, the complainant failed to prove the alleged additional expense component. Applying the limited appellate interference standard in acquittal matters, the trial court's view was found reasonable and the acquittal was maintained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417540