https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305396 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose once cheque execution and dishonour for insufficiency of funds were established, but they remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully created doubt through the complainant's own inconsistent evidence on the alleged cash advances, source of funds, and non-examination of alleged witnesses. As the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt after that rebuttal, the trial court's acquittal was not disturbed on appeal. en-us Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 02 Dec 2022 18:53:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305396 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose once cheque execution and dishonour for insufficiency of funds were established, but they remained rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused successfully created doubt through the complainant's own inconsistent evidence on the alleged cash advances, source of funds, and non-examination of alleged witnesses. As the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt after that rebuttal, the trial court's acquittal was not disturbed on appeal. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305396