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, in revisional jurisdiction, interference with concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted. (ii) Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted issuance of the cheque by pleading that it was a blank security cheque. (iii) Whether dishonour, service of notice, and non-payment established the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Issue (i): Whether, in revisional jurisdiction, interference with concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was warranted.
Analysis: Revisional interference is confined to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, perversity, or gross miscarriage of justice. Concurrent findings recorded by the trial court and the appellate court are not to be reappreciated merely because another view is possible. The scope under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and not appellate.
Conclusion: Interference was not warranted.
Issue (ii): Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted issuance of the cheque by pleading that it was a blank security cheque.
Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted, presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise in favour of the holder. The accused must rebut them by raising a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. A mere denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is insufficient. A cheque issued as security does not cease to attract Section 138 when the underlying liability has matured, and a signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over may still found liability. The accused led no defence evidence and failed to dislodge the presumption.
Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the security cheque defence failed.
Issue (iii): Whether dishonour, service of notice, and non-payment established the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: The cheque dishonour memo carried the endorsement of insufficient funds and attracted the statutory presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Notice sent to the correct address gave rise to deemed service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and no rebuttal evidence was produced. The accused did not make payment within the statutory period. These circumstances satisfied the ingredients of the offence.
Conclusion: The ingredients of the offence were duly established.
Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and no interference was called for in revision.
Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission of the cheque and signature activates the statutory presumptions, which can be displaced only by a probable defence supported by evidence; a blank or security cheque remains enforceable when liability exists and the accused does not rebut the presumption or the statutory service and dishonour requirements.
TaxTMI 
