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: (i) Whether the complainant proved the transaction and legally enforceable liability so as to attract the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. (ii) Whether presentation of the cheque after four months invalidated the complaint.
Issue (i): Whether the complainant proved the transaction and legally enforceable liability so as to attract the presumption under Sections 118 and 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The complaint was supported by the ledger entries and the oral evidence of the complainant, which established the business transaction between the parties. The accused did not dispute the cheque signature, did not issue any reply to the statutory notice, and did not produce material to disprove the liability. The presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act therefore operated in favour of the complainant and remained unrebutted.
Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the complainant, and the liability stood proved for the purpose of Section 138.
Issue (ii): Whether presentation of the cheque after four months invalidated the complaint.
Analysis: The cheque was accepted by the bank and dishonoured for the reason that the account was closed. Since the cheque was processed on presentation, the delay by itself did not render the complaint unsustainable. The dishonour established that the cheque was still valid when presented.
Conclusion: The issue was answered against the accused, and the delayed presentation did not vitiate the prosecution.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the revision failed.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the complainant proves the underlying transaction and the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumption arises and the accused must rebut it with credible material; mere delay in presentation, without invalidity of the cheque or successful rebuttal, does not defeat the complaint.
TaxTMI 
