https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458425 The HC ruled in favor of the appellant in a dishonor of cheque case. The respondent/accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act despite claiming the cheques were given as security. The court found that altered dates on cheques attested by the respondent, combined with failure to demand return of cheques after statutory notice, established legally enforceable liability. The respondent's admission of issuing cheques without proper rebuttal of presumption meant the burden never shifted to the complainant. Non-production of the Memorandum of Understanding did not affect the outcome given the failed rebuttal of presumption. Criminal appeals were allowed. en-us Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Oct 2024 09:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458425 The HC ruled in favor of the appellant in a dishonor of cheque case. The respondent/accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act despite claiming the cheques were given as security. The court found that altered dates on cheques attested by the respondent, combined with failure to demand return of cheques after statutory notice, established legally enforceable liability. The respondent's admission of issuing cheques without proper rebuttal of presumption meant the burden never shifted to the complainant. Non-production of the Memorandum of Understanding did not affect the outcome given the failed rebuttal of presumption. Criminal appeals were allowed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 24 Apr 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=458425