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 conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence of compensation called for interference in revisional jurisdiction; (ii) Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted and whether service of notice was valid.
Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence of compensation called for interference in revisional jurisdiction.
Analysis: Revisional interference is confined to correcting jurisdictional error, perversity, gross illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The findings of the courts below were based on appreciation of evidence, and no perversity, illegality, or patent unreasonableness was shown in the conviction or in the quantum of compensation imposed under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Conclusion: Interference in revision was not warranted, and the conviction and sentence were maintained.
Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood rebutted and whether service of notice was valid.
Analysis: The cheque bore the petitioner's signature, which attracted the statutory presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The defence version regarding delivery of the cheque to a third person was not supported by the evidence of that witness. The challenge based on the loan amount was not sufficient to displace the presumption. As to notice, the address used for service matched the address furnished by the petitioner in court records, and even otherwise, service of summons after filing of the complaint supported compliance with the notice requirement.
Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, and service of notice was treated as duly effected.
Final Conclusion: The revision failed on merits, as the concurrent findings on liability, notice, and sentence were found to be sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be disturbed absent perversity or gross illegality, and the statutory presumption under Section 139 remains unless the accused discharges the burden of rebuttal.
TaxTMI 
