https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785746 Interference with an acquittal is justified only where the finding is perverse or rests on a material misreading of evidence; here, no such infirmity was found and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not established because the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued in discharge of a third party's debt, nor did it explain the shift from the alleged loan to the cheque amount. Conviction of the firm's partners also failed because the complaint lacked specific averments and proof of each partner's role in the transaction or assumed liability. en-us Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 30 Jan 2026 10:00:33 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785746 Interference with an acquittal is justified only where the finding is perverse or rests on a material misreading of evidence; here, no such infirmity was found and the acquittal was left undisturbed. Liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not established because the evidence did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that the cheque was issued in discharge of a third party's debt, nor did it explain the shift from the alleged loan to the cheque amount. Conviction of the firm's partners also failed because the complaint lacked specific averments and proof of each partner's role in the transaction or assumed liability. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785746