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 acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable when the complainant proved issuance and execution of the cheque, the signature on the cheque was admitted, the cheque was said to be filled by another person, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption or establish a probable defence.
Analysis: Once the complainant proved the transaction and execution of the cheque, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in his favour. A cheque does not become invalid merely because it was filled by a person other than the drawer, if the drawer voluntarily signed and handed it over. The accused's plea that the cheque was issued only as security in a chitty transaction was unsupported by convincing evidence, and the relevant diary was not proved in evidence. The objection that the complainant had not proved the source of the amount advanced could not defeat the claim after the presumption had arisen, since the burden then shifted to the accused to rebut it by a probable defence. The accused failed to discharge that burden.
Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable. The accused was guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the complainant succeeded.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
