https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421578 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut them with a probable defence supported by material evidence. The accused's plea that the cheque was lost, stop-payment instructions had been issued, and the complainant lacked financial capacity was found unsupported by documentary proof, bank intimation, or any complaint. The complainant's documents were accepted as proving the transaction and liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld because the presumptions were not displaced. en-us Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 28 Apr 2022 08:12:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421578 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant, requiring the accused to rebut them with a probable defence supported by material evidence. The accused's plea that the cheque was lost, stop-payment instructions had been issued, and the complainant lacked financial capacity was found unsupported by documentary proof, bank intimation, or any complaint. The complainant's documents were accepted as proving the transaction and liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld because the presumptions were not displaced. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421578