https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790355 Admitted cheque and signature triggered the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer failed to rebut it. A defence that the cheque was issued as security in a chit transaction with a third person was not probabilised because the crucial supporting witness was available but not examined. The complainant was not required to disprove that version once a specific defence was raised. The lower appellate court erred in treating that non-examination as fatal and in interfering with a conviction that had been correctly based on the evidence. The cheque was therefore treated as issued towards a legally enforceable liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was restored. en-us Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Apr 2026 08:52:15 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790355 Admitted cheque and signature triggered the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the drawer failed to rebut it. A defence that the cheque was issued as security in a chit transaction with a third person was not probabilised because the crucial supporting witness was available but not examined. The complainant was not required to disprove that version once a specific defence was raised. The lower appellate court erred in treating that non-examination as fatal and in interfering with a conviction that had been correctly based on the evidence. The cheque was therefore treated as issued towards a legally enforceable liability, and the conviction under Section 138 was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 17 Mar 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=790355