https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758994 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the High Court emphasised that once the cheque, signature, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment after notice were established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused's bare plea that blank signed cheques were misused, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to rebut the reverse onus. The Court also held that the complainant was not required to prove the source of funds or other collateral matters once the foundational facts under Section 138 were proved, and that omissions regarding ancillary documents or interest particulars were not fatal. The acquittal was therefore set aside and conviction under Section 138 followed. en-us Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 19 Sep 2024 18:47:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758994 In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the High Court emphasised that once the cheque, signature, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment after notice were established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused's bare plea that blank signed cheques were misused, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to rebut the reverse onus. The Court also held that the complainant was not required to prove the source of funds or other collateral matters once the foundational facts under Section 138 were proved, and that omissions regarding ancillary documents or interest particulars were not fatal. The acquittal was therefore set aside and conviction under Section 138 followed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 04 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=758994