https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754092 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the High Court held that where the alleged liability was substantial and the complaints did not clearly disclose the mode, date, or split of payment, further cross-examination of the complainant and production of income tax returns and bank statements were necessary to test the foundational facts and rebut the statutory presumption. The refusal to recall the complainant and to summon those financial records was set aside. However, the refusal to summon the accused's bank managers was upheld, as the accused could rely on his own bank evidence and the need for third-party summons could be reconsidered later if warranted. en-us Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Jun 2024 21:07:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754092 In cheque dishonour prosecutions, the High Court held that where the alleged liability was substantial and the complaints did not clearly disclose the mode, date, or split of payment, further cross-examination of the complainant and production of income tax returns and bank statements were necessary to test the foundational facts and rebut the statutory presumption. The refusal to recall the complainant and to summon those financial records was set aside. However, the refusal to summon the accused's bank managers was upheld, as the accused could rely on his own bank evidence and the need for third-party summons could be reconsidered later if warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 25 Apr 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754092