https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754068 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were held to be rebutted where the accused established a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's account of lending money and receiving the cheque was found unconvincing because there was no supporting material on the transaction, source of funds, or circumstances of issuance. The defence that the cheque was issued as security in connection with a chitty transaction was accepted as sufficient to create doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was therefore sustained. en-us Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 08:44:41 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754068 In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 were held to be rebutted where the accused established a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The complainant's account of lending money and receiving the cheque was found unconvincing because there was no supporting material on the transaction, source of funds, or circumstances of issuance. The defence that the cheque was issued as security in connection with a chitty transaction was accepted as sufficient to create doubt about the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the acquittal was therefore sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 29 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754068