https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308556 The appeal challenging the acquittal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The appellant failed to prove the lending and receipt of the cheque, as the complainant admitted her husband had lent the money, not her directly. The Trial Court rightly held that the complainant did not establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The Supreme Court clarified that the presumption under section 139 of the Act requires proof of receiving the cheque from the accused, which was lacking in this case. The appeal lacked merit and was therefore dismissed. en-us Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 04 Jul 2023 14:15:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308556 The appeal challenging the acquittal under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was dismissed. The appellant failed to prove the lending and receipt of the cheque, as the complainant admitted her husband had lent the money, not her directly. The Trial Court rightly held that the complainant did not establish the existence of a legally enforceable debt. The Supreme Court clarified that the presumption under section 139 of the Act requires proof of receiving the cheque from the accused, which was lacking in this case. The appeal lacked merit and was therefore dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 25 Mar 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308556