TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted and the statutory presumption under Section 139 applied; and whether the revisional court was justified in interfering with concurrent findings of conviction.
Analysis: Once the complainant establishes that the cheque was issued by the accused and the signature is not disputed, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the holder of the cheque that it was issued for discharge of a debt or liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to rebut that presumption. The High Court did not advert to this statutory presumption and also interfered in revision despite concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.
Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable. The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored and the appeals were allowed to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The judgment reaffirmed the operation of the presumption under Section 139 in cheque dishonour cases and restored the concurrent conviction after holding that the revisional interference was unwarranted.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once issuance and signature of the cheque are admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 arises in favour of the complainant and can be displaced only by the accused; a revisional court should not disturb concurrent findings without addressing that presumption.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
