https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442309 Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption of liability under sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies even if the payee filled in the particulars, and the drawer must rebut it by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare plea that the cheques were only security cheques, without supporting evidence such as complaint of misuse, stop-payment instructions, reply to notice, or proof from alleged creditors, was insufficient, so the defence failed. The complainant's income-tax returns, balance sheets, cash disclosures, funds from family, and jewellery sale proceeds sufficiently proved financial capacity and advancement of the loan, and the conviction and sentence under section 138 were upheld. en-us Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 29 Aug 2023 08:38:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442309 Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption of liability under sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applies even if the payee filled in the particulars, and the drawer must rebut it by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare plea that the cheques were only security cheques, without supporting evidence such as complaint of misuse, stop-payment instructions, reply to notice, or proof from alleged creditors, was insufficient, so the defence failed. The complainant's income-tax returns, balance sheets, cash disclosures, funds from family, and jewellery sale proceeds sufficiently proved financial capacity and advancement of the loan, and the conviction and sentence under section 138 were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 21 Aug 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=442309