https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760522 Execution of the cheque and signature being admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused failed to prove full repayment or that the cheque was merely a security cheque, and the alleged deposits were not linked to the transaction in question. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds and service of the demand notice at the correct address were treated as established on the statutory presumptions. The High Court, exercising narrow revisional jurisdiction, found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 138. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 22 Oct 2024 18:30:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760522 Execution of the cheque and signature being admitted, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused failed to prove full repayment or that the cheque was merely a security cheque, and the alleged deposits were not linked to the transaction in question. Dishonour for insufficiency of funds and service of the demand notice at the correct address were treated as established on the statutory presumptions. The High Court, exercising narrow revisional jurisdiction, found no patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 138. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760522