https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432756 The Bombay HC reiterated that once cheque issuance, dishonour and borrowing were admitted, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act presumption of a legally enforceable debt on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare denial, a cryptic letter and unproved cross-examination suggestions were held insufficient, especially because the accused did not testify or lead affirmative evidence of repayment; the presumption therefore remained unrebutted. The Court also held that the complainant was not a money-lender merely because he had advanced funds to a few persons without interest, as the transaction did not fit the statutory concept of money-lending under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001. The conviction and compensation order were restored. en-us Sat, 07 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 13 Jan 2023 07:00:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432756 The Bombay HC reiterated that once cheque issuance, dishonour and borrowing were admitted, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act presumption of a legally enforceable debt on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare denial, a cryptic letter and unproved cross-examination suggestions were held insufficient, especially because the accused did not testify or lead affirmative evidence of repayment; the presumption therefore remained unrebutted. The Court also held that the complainant was not a money-lender merely because he had advanced funds to a few persons without interest, as the transaction did not fit the statutory concept of money-lending under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001. The conviction and compensation order were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 07 Jan 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=432756