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 guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 suffered from perversity, illegality or error warranting interference in revision.
Analysis: The notice issued after dishonour was held to have been sent to the correct address and its non-delivery did not assist the accused. The cheque was admittedly issued by the accused and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, giving rise to a presumption of legally enforceable debt. The accused failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The contemporaneous acknowledgment document produced by the defence supported the complainant's case that the cheque was issued towards discharge of the Trust's liability and that the accused was actively connected with the transaction. The courts below were found to have properly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence.
Conclusion: The revision court found no perversity or illegality in the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are proved, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt operates and can be displaced only by a probable defence; failure to rebut that presumption justifies conviction.
TaxTMI 
