https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784953 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admitted cheque execution and signatures triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 in favour of the complainant. The accused rebutted those presumptions by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities through inconsistencies in the complainant's loan version, absence of supporting records, conflicting accounts of prior transactions, and surrounding circumstances including stop-payment instructions. Once rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The acquittal was therefore upheld. en-us Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 15 Jan 2026 08:41:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784953 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admitted cheque execution and signatures triggered the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 in favour of the complainant. The accused rebutted those presumptions by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities through inconsistencies in the complainant's loan version, absence of supporting records, conflicting accounts of prior transactions, and surrounding circumstances including stop-payment instructions. Once rebutted, the burden shifted back to the complainant, who failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability. The acquittal was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 05 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=784953