https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784805 Dishonour of cheque prosecution failed for want of proof that a legally enforceable debt existed at the time of cheque presentation; the defence probabilised a loan transaction and produced rebuttal evidence undermining the complainants case, so the complainant did not discharge the burden of proof and conviction could not stand. Evidence that the complainant was an unregistered financier charging exorbitant interest, absence of independent corroboration, lack of specific issuance dates, complaints of threats and misuse of blank cheques, and inconsistent relationship facts collectively negated subsistence of a recoverable debt, resulting in acquittal and release of deposited amounts. en-us Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 13 Jan 2026 08:29:09 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784805 Dishonour of cheque prosecution failed for want of proof that a legally enforceable debt existed at the time of cheque presentation; the defence probabilised a loan transaction and produced rebuttal evidence undermining the complainants case, so the complainant did not discharge the burden of proof and conviction could not stand. Evidence that the complainant was an unregistered financier charging exorbitant interest, absence of independent corroboration, lack of specific issuance dates, complaints of threats and misuse of blank cheques, and inconsistent relationship facts collectively negated subsistence of a recoverable debt, resulting in acquittal and release of deposited amounts. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 02 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784805