https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783836 In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the statutory presumptions under ss.118 and 139 stood rebutted. The HC held that once the drawer admitted signatures and the cheque was dishonoured for "funds insufficient," a presumption of legally enforceable debt arose, shifting the onus to the accused to raise a probable defence by proof and not a merely plausible explanation; no such credible rebuttal was established. The plea of complainant's lack of financial capacity was rejected since it was not specifically raised in reply to the statutory demand notice, hence no obligation arose to prove capacity. Service of notice was treated as complied with when properly addressed and sent by registered post. The revision was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 24 Dec 2025 07:51:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783836 In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the statutory presumptions under ss.118 and 139 stood rebutted. The HC held that once the drawer admitted signatures and the cheque was dishonoured for "funds insufficient," a presumption of legally enforceable debt arose, shifting the onus to the accused to raise a probable defence by proof and not a merely plausible explanation; no such credible rebuttal was established. The plea of complainant's lack of financial capacity was rejected since it was not specifically raised in reply to the statutory demand notice, hence no obligation arose to prove capacity. Service of notice was treated as complied with when properly addressed and sent by registered post. The revision was dismissed and the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 15 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=783836