https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418635 The accused rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defence supported by defence evidence and surrounding circumstances. The complaint lacked a clear date of the alleged hand loan, and the claim of a substantial cash advance without security, interest, or proof of financial capacity was not substantiated. Cross-examination, pending civil litigation, and the absence of documentary evidence of income or source of funds weakened the alleged debt. Once the presumption stood rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities, the burden returned to the complainant, who failed to prove a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt. The Karnataka HC sustained the acquittal. en-us Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Feb 2022 07:21:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418635 The accused rebutted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act by raising a probable defence supported by defence evidence and surrounding circumstances. The complaint lacked a clear date of the alleged hand loan, and the claim of a substantial cash advance without security, interest, or proof of financial capacity was not substantiated. Cross-examination, pending civil litigation, and the absence of documentary evidence of income or source of funds weakened the alleged debt. Once the presumption stood rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities, the burden returned to the complainant, who failed to prove a legally enforceable debt beyond reasonable doubt. The Karnataka HC sustained the acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 20 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=418635