https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440384 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by an unregistered firm was held maintainable because the bar in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act does not defeat such prosecution. Where execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arose, but the accused rebutted it on a preponderance of probabilities through a plausible alternative version supported by reply notice and oral evidence, while the complainant failed to substantiate the alleged transaction with documentary proof. The acquittal was therefore not perverse and did not justify appellate interference. en-us Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jul 2023 16:13:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440384 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by an unregistered firm was held maintainable because the bar in Section 69(2) of the Indian Partnership Act does not defeat such prosecution. Where execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumption under Section 139 arose, but the accused rebutted it on a preponderance of probabilities through a plausible alternative version supported by reply notice and oral evidence, while the complainant failed to substantiate the alleged transaction with documentary proof. The acquittal was therefore not perverse and did not justify appellate interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Jul 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=440384