https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759538 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is justified only if the acquittal is perverse, having regard to the double presumption of innocence. Where the accused disputes execution of the cheque and raises a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 stand rebutted, and the complainant must independently prove a legally enforceable debt or liability. On the evidence, the accused consistently disputed the signatures and supported that defence with expert evidence, while the complainant failed to prove the loan details or the existence of liability on the cheque date. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed. en-us Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Oct 2024 11:47:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759538 In an appeal against acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the appellate court may reappreciate evidence, but interference is justified only if the acquittal is perverse, having regard to the double presumption of innocence. Where the accused disputes execution of the cheque and raises a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 stand rebutted, and the complainant must independently prove a legally enforceable debt or liability. On the evidence, the accused consistently disputed the signatures and supported that defence with expert evidence, while the complainant failed to prove the loan details or the existence of liability on the cheque date. The acquittal was therefore not disturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Sep 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=759538