https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784193 In an appeal against acquittal under s.138 NI Act, the HC held that interference is warranted only if the acquittal is perverse or based on misreading/omission of material evidence; the trial court's view was plausible, so interference was declined. Although the accused admitted the cheque signature, the complainant's cross-examination rendered his financial capacity doubtful, displacing the statutory presumption, defeating the claim of a legally enforceable liability. Further, the complainant alleged cash loan advances in 2014 without dates, while the cheque was issued in 2017; on these pleadings the cheque related to a time-barred debt and fell outside s.138, making the complaint not maintainable. Non-compliance with s.269SS IT Act did not justify an adverse inference. The appeal was dismissed. en-us Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 31 Dec 2025 09:17:36 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784193 In an appeal against acquittal under s.138 NI Act, the HC held that interference is warranted only if the acquittal is perverse or based on misreading/omission of material evidence; the trial court's view was plausible, so interference was declined. Although the accused admitted the cheque signature, the complainant's cross-examination rendered his financial capacity doubtful, displacing the statutory presumption, defeating the claim of a legally enforceable liability. Further, the complainant alleged cash loan advances in 2014 without dates, while the cheque was issued in 2017; on these pleadings the cheque related to a time-barred debt and fell outside s.138, making the complaint not maintainable. Non-compliance with s.269SS IT Act did not justify an adverse inference. The appeal was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 19 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784193