https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302669 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt and the underlying loan transaction before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate. Here, the cheque bore the respondent's signature, but the loan date was not stated, no independent document supported the alleged advance, the complainant's financial capacity was unproved, and the cash transaction was found inconsistent with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The defence version was sufficiently probable to rebut the presumption, so the liability was not established. The appellate court also held that interference with acquittal is justified only where the trial view is perverse or ignores material evidence; no such ground was shown, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 10 Jun 2022 17:32:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302669 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the foundational facts of a legally enforceable debt and the underlying loan transaction before the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 can operate. Here, the cheque bore the respondent's signature, but the loan date was not stated, no independent document supported the alleged advance, the complainant's financial capacity was unproved, and the cash transaction was found inconsistent with Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act. The defence version was sufficiently probable to rebut the presumption, so the liability was not established. The appellate court also held that interference with acquittal is justified only where the trial view is perverse or ignores material evidence; no such ground was shown, and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 May 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=302669