https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312160 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt with sufficient particulars or supporting material. Although presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initially favoured the cheque holder, they were treated as rebutted by cross-examination and the complainant's own admissions. The complaint and affidavit did not specify the dates, principal amount, or basis for interest, and no ledger, account, pronote, or other corroborative document was produced. The defence version was found more probable, so special leave to appeal against acquittal was not made out. The issue under the Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act was not examined on merits. en-us Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 03 Feb 2024 19:23:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312160 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the complainant failed to establish a legally enforceable debt with sufficient particulars or supporting material. Although presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act initially favoured the cheque holder, they were treated as rebutted by cross-examination and the complainant's own admissions. The complaint and affidavit did not specify the dates, principal amount, or basis for interest, and no ledger, account, pronote, or other corroborative document was produced. The defence version was found more probable, so special leave to appeal against acquittal was not made out. The issue under the Punjab Registration of Money-lender's Act was not examined on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Feb 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312160