TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was proved, including the operation of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of that Act. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed for the offence required enhancement.
Issue (i): Whether the cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was proved, including the operation of the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of that Act.
Analysis: The cheque issuance and signature were admitted, and the statutory notice requirement was also satisfied. On such admission, the statutory presumption arose that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable liability. The burden therefore shifted to the accused to rebut that presumption by a probable defence. Both the trial court and the appellate court found that the accused did not rebut the presumption and that the complainant established the offence.
Conclusion: The finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained and the challenge by the accused failed.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed for the offence required enhancement.
Analysis: The complainant sought enhancement of the fine on the footing that the amount imposed was inadequate in relation to the cheque amount. The revision court found no infirmity in the conviction, but held that the fine should be enhanced and directed payment of the enhanced amount as compensation to the complainant.
Conclusion: The sentence was modified by enhancing the fine to Rs. 2 lakhs, and the complainant's revision was allowed to that extent.
Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, the accused's revision was dismissed, and the complainant obtained partial relief by way of enhancement of the fine amount.
Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence; in revision, interference is warranted only on demonstrated perversity, and sentence may be enhanced where the punishment is found inadequate.
TaxTMI 
