https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773312 Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder; the drawer must rebut them with probable evidence, and mere assertion that the cheque was a security cheque is insufficient. Here, the accused failed to displace the presumption, so the cheque was treated as issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. A notice returned with endorsements such as unclaimed at the correct address attracts deemed service, and the drawer must prove defective service; no such proof was given. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were sustained. en-us Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Jun 2025 08:28:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773312 Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder; the drawer must rebut them with probable evidence, and mere assertion that the cheque was a security cheque is insufficient. Here, the accused failed to displace the presumption, so the cheque was treated as issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt. A notice returned with endorsements such as unclaimed at the correct address attracts deemed service, and the drawer must prove defective service; no such proof was given. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 05 Jun 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=773312