https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314298 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 arose once issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, and service of notice were proved. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including from material elicited in cross-examination of the complainant. Here, cross-examination created credible doubt about the complainant's financial capacity to advance the loan, and his asserted source of funds was unsupported by tangible evidence. Although the defence of security cheque and misuse was not independently proved, the doubt on capacity was sufficient to displace the presumption and the debt was not established with sufficient certainty. en-us Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 30 May 2024 20:49:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314298 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 arose once issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, and service of notice were proved. That presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, including from material elicited in cross-examination of the complainant. Here, cross-examination created credible doubt about the complainant's financial capacity to advance the loan, and his asserted source of funds was unsupported by tangible evidence. Although the defence of security cheque and misuse was not independently proved, the doubt on capacity was sufficient to displace the presumption and the debt was not established with sufficient certainty. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 May 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314298