https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773232 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. The foundational MOU and material showing how the alleged loss was quantified or how the cheque amount represented a crystallised liability were not produced, and the complainant's witness lacked personal knowledge of the transaction. The defence adduced documents suggesting coercive procurement of the cheque and rebutted the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The burden then shifted back to the complainant, who did not discharge it, so the acquittal was upheld. en-us Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 20 Jun 2025 08:34:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773232 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, but the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt. The foundational MOU and material showing how the alleged loss was quantified or how the cheque amount represented a crystallised liability were not produced, and the complainant's witness lacked personal knowledge of the transaction. The defence adduced documents suggesting coercive procurement of the cheque and rebutted the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The burden then shifted back to the complainant, who did not discharge it, so the acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 16 May 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773232