https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443083 In revision, the HC held that concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be disturbed because revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC does not permit re-appreciation of evidence like a second appeal. Once execution of the cheques was admitted and proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the holder, including a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities; the claim that the cheques were issued only as security was found improbable in light of cross-examination admissions and the absence of notice, complaint, or stop-payment instructions. The absence of documentary proof of the complainant's financial capacity did not displace the unrebutted statutory presumption. en-us Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 16 Sep 2023 08:44:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443083 In revision, the HC held that concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be disturbed because revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC does not permit re-appreciation of evidence like a second appeal. Once execution of the cheques was admitted and proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the holder, including a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities; the claim that the cheques were issued only as security was found improbable in light of cross-examination admissions and the absence of notice, complaint, or stop-payment instructions. The absence of documentary proof of the complainant's financial capacity did not displace the unrebutted statutory presumption. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Sep 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=443083