TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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 concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the dismissal of the revision petitioner's challenge were perverse, illegal or erroneous so as to warrant interference in revision.
Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and notice demanding payment was sent to the correct residential and workplace addresses but remained unclaimed, amounting to deemed service. This attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut that presumption with any credible defence; his suggestions were inconsistent and did not explain how the cheque came into the complainant's possession. The record also showed that the accused had been given sufficient opportunities to lead defence evidence and to cross-examine the complainant, including an earlier application under Section 311 read with Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 that had already been allowed. The later request to summon the bank manager was found unnecessary and non-prejudicial, particularly when no application had been made for expert comparison of signatures and the cheque was not returned for signature mismatch.
Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and no revisional interference was called for.
TaxTMI 
