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: (i) Whether the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out. (ii) Whether the sentence and compensation required modification.
Issue (i): Whether the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable debt and the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out.
Analysis: The admitted execution of the cheques attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused did not adduce cogent evidence to rebut the presumption that the cheques were issued for consideration and in discharge of debt or liability. The plea based on agency and Section 230 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 was rejected on the facts, since the cheques were issued in favour of the complainant and no probable defence was established. The concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court were not shown to be perverse.
Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld.
Issue (ii): Whether the sentence and compensation required modification.
Analysis: The appellate court had already reduced the custodial sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court while maintaining compensation. The revisional court interfered only to the extent of rationalising the compensation so that the amount recoverable matched the cheque amount covered by the transaction, while otherwise maintaining the conviction and sentence.
Conclusion: The compensation was modified, and the sentence was otherwise maintained.
Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of modification of compensation, while the conviction for dishonour of cheques remained undisturbed.
Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted or proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence; failure to do so sustains conviction under Section 138.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
