https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778909 Admission of borrowing, cheque issuance and signature brought the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act into operation, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut liability by a probable defence; mere denial under Section 313 CrPC without defence evidence or proof of repayment was insufficient. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque failed because a security cheque can attract Section 138 once liability has matured. Dishonour for "account closed" and deemed service of notice were treated as sufficient. The conviction, sentence and compensation were upheld, and no revisional interference was warranted. en-us Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 25 Sep 2025 08:37:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778909 Admission of borrowing, cheque issuance and signature brought the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act into operation, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut liability by a probable defence; mere denial under Section 313 CrPC without defence evidence or proof of repayment was insufficient. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque failed because a security cheque can attract Section 138 once liability has matured. Dishonour for "account closed" and deemed service of notice were treated as sufficient. The conviction, sentence and compensation were upheld, and no revisional interference was warranted. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 23 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=778909