https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309289 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose in favour of the complainant, but it was rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The accused rebutted the presumption through cross-examination, a prior notice, and evidence that the cheque did not bear the accused's signature. The complainant then failed to prove payment of the alleged amount or any legally enforceable liability beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the trial court's view was found to be a possible view, so the acquittal was upheld. en-us Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:38:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309289 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 arose in favour of the complainant, but it was rebuttable on a preponderance of probability. The accused rebutted the presumption through cross-examination, a prior notice, and evidence that the cheque did not bear the accused's signature. The complainant then failed to prove payment of the alleged amount or any legally enforceable liability beyond reasonable doubt. On appeal against acquittal, the trial court's view was found to be a possible view, so the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309289