https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768515 Admitted execution of the cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused was required to rebut them with a probable defence. The court held that the proved settlement and compromise deed, together with the complainant's withdrawal of the earlier complaint and the petitioner's admitted liability, defeated the plea that no legally enforceable debt existed; the conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained. The plea of coercion and misuse of a security cheque was rejected on the facts, though the sentence was moderated on mitigating circumstances by setting aside the substantive imprisonment and confining punishment to fine with default imprisonment. en-us Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 09 Apr 2025 07:42:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768515 Admitted execution of the cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused was required to rebut them with a probable defence. The court held that the proved settlement and compromise deed, together with the complainant's withdrawal of the earlier complaint and the petitioner's admitted liability, defeated the plea that no legally enforceable debt existed; the conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained. The plea of coercion and misuse of a security cheque was rejected on the facts, though the sentence was moderated on mitigating circumstances by setting aside the substantive imprisonment and confining punishment to fine with default imprisonment. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Apr 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=768515