https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785921 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the instrument was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused's defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, that the complainant lacked financial capacity, and that repayment had been made was not supported by cogent evidence; the complainant's version also remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. The court therefore treated the statutory presumption as unrebutted, noted that differing ink in the cheque particulars did not by itself displace liability, and concluded that the acquittal could not stand, resulting in guilt under Section 138. en-us Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 03 Feb 2026 08:38:30 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785921 Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the instrument was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused's defence that the cheque was only a security cheque, that the complainant lacked financial capacity, and that repayment had been made was not supported by cogent evidence; the complainant's version also remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. The court therefore treated the statutory presumption as unrebutted, noted that differing ink in the cheque particulars did not by itself displace liability, and concluded that the acquittal could not stand, resulting in guilt under Section 138. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785921