https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456889 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission or proof of the cheque and its dishonour for insufficiency of funds triggered the presumption under Section 139 in favour of the holder. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the complainant was not obliged to independently prove the debt unless the presumption was displaced. The High Court found that the trial court had misread the accused's Section 313 CrPC statement and the complainant's cross-examination, and had wrongly ignored the statutory presumption. As the defence failed to rebut the presumption of legally enforceable liability, the acquittal was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed on sentence. en-us Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Aug 2024 19:52:24 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456889 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission or proof of the cheque and its dishonour for insufficiency of funds triggered the presumption under Section 139 in favour of the holder. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the complainant was not obliged to independently prove the debt unless the presumption was displaced. The High Court found that the trial court had misread the accused's Section 313 CrPC statement and the complainant's cross-examination, and had wrongly ignored the statutory presumption. As the defence failed to rebut the presumption of legally enforceable liability, the acquittal was set aside and the matter was directed to proceed on sentence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 Apr 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=456889