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: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with in revision on the ground that the cheque was a blank signed cheque allegedly misused by the complainant, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted.
Analysis: The cheque signatures were admitted, and the defence that the cheque was merely blank and later misused was found to be unsupported by a consistent or probable version. The courts below had concurrently found that the complainant established the transaction and dishonour, thereby attracting the presumption under Section 139. The accused did not produce cogent evidence to show that the cheque was not issued towards a debt or liability. In revisional jurisdiction, interference is not warranted in the absence of perversity or jurisdictional error.
Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed. The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted, and the revision was dismissed.
Ratio Decidendi: A signed blank cheque, when voluntarily issued, attracts the presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and such presumption can be displaced only by cogent evidence; in revision, concurrent findings under Section 138 will not be disturbed absent perversity or jurisdictional error.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
