https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305316 For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the cheque's execution by the accused before statutory presumptions arise. Here, the evidence did not conclusively establish that the accused signed the cheque, and cross-examination created doubt about the signatory's identity and the alleged liability. The presumption under Section 139 therefore could not be invoked. The presumption under Section 146 also failed because the dishonour memo was not shown to bear the bank's official mark or seal, and the original memo was not produced by the bank witness. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found neither perverse nor absurd, so the acquittal was not interfered with. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Nov 2022 09:12:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305316 For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the complainant must first prove the cheque's execution by the accused before statutory presumptions arise. Here, the evidence did not conclusively establish that the accused signed the cheque, and cross-examination created doubt about the signatory's identity and the alleged liability. The presumption under Section 139 therefore could not be invoked. The presumption under Section 146 also failed because the dishonour memo was not shown to bear the bank's official mark or seal, and the original memo was not produced by the bank witness. The trial court's appreciation of evidence was found neither perverse nor absurd, so the acquittal was not interfered with. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305316