https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754388 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated because the cheque and signature were admitted. The complainant's financial capacity could not be used to displace the presumption when no specific challenge to means was raised in the reply notice or at the relevant stage of trial. The appellate finding that the complainant failed to prove capacity was held unsustainable for want of a proper evidentiary basis, and the defence version of cheque misuse and finance-company involvement remained unsubstantiated. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored. en-us Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Jun 2024 08:10:31 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754388 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated because the cheque and signature were admitted. The complainant's financial capacity could not be used to displace the presumption when no specific challenge to means was raised in the reply notice or at the relevant stage of trial. The appellate finding that the complainant failed to prove capacity was held unsustainable for want of a proper evidentiary basis, and the defence version of cheque misuse and finance-company involvement remained unsubstantiated. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 05 Jun 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754388