https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462903 Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder, and the drawer must rebut them with a probable defence supported by cogent evidence. A plea that the cheque was only a security cheque, or that a smaller loan had been repaid, was held insufficient on the evidence described. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court misapplies the statutory presumption and wrongly shifts the burden to the complainant. The acquittal was therefore set aside, and liability under Section 138 was treated as proved on the basis of unrebutted presumptions and dishonour of the cheque. en-us Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 24 Jul 2025 18:56:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462903 Where execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder, and the drawer must rebut them with a probable defence supported by cogent evidence. A plea that the cheque was only a security cheque, or that a smaller loan had been repaid, was held insufficient on the evidence described. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is justified where the trial court misapplies the statutory presumption and wrongly shifts the burden to the complainant. The acquittal was therefore set aside, and liability under Section 138 was treated as proved on the basis of unrebutted presumptions and dishonour of the cheque. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 25 Jun 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462903