https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786269 Admission of cheque execution and receipt of notice triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the holder, and the accused failed to rebut them with any probable defence; liability was therefore upheld. The absence of direct privity with the complainant did not defeat Section 138 liability where the evidence showed the cheque was issued by the petitioner towards the transaction. Limitation was computed from the cheque issuance, presentation and dishonour, not from the earlier memorandum of understanding, so the complaint was held within time. Concurrent findings of conviction and sentence were left undisturbed. en-us Mon, 09 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 11 Feb 2026 08:47:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786269 Admission of cheque execution and receipt of notice triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the holder, and the accused failed to rebut them with any probable defence; liability was therefore upheld. The absence of direct privity with the complainant did not defeat Section 138 liability where the evidence showed the cheque was issued by the petitioner towards the transaction. Limitation was computed from the cheque issuance, presentation and dishonour, not from the earlier memorandum of understanding, so the complaint was held within time. Concurrent findings of conviction and sentence were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=786269