https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422203 In a Section 138 prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted because the complainant's witness could not satisfactorily explain the underlying transaction, issuance of the cheque, or the alleged liability. The court held that the accused was not obliged to enter the witness box and could establish a probable defence through cross-examination and surrounding circumstances. On the materials on record, the defence that the cheque had been issued earlier as security and that no subsisting legally enforceable debt was shown was accepted. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal. en-us Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 May 2022 08:42:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422203 In a Section 138 prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption under Section 139 was rebutted because the complainant's witness could not satisfactorily explain the underlying transaction, issuance of the cheque, or the alleged liability. The court held that the accused was not obliged to enter the witness box and could establish a probable defence through cross-examination and surrounding circumstances. On the materials on record, the defence that the cheque had been issued earlier as security and that no subsisting legally enforceable debt was shown was accepted. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 29 Apr 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=422203