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: (i) whether interference was warranted in revision with concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood unrebutted and the statutory ingredients of the offence were proved; (iii) whether the sentence of imprisonment, compensation, default sentence and deemed service of notice required interference.
Issue (i): whether interference was warranted in revision with concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is narrow and is not an appellate reappreciation of evidence. Interference is justified only where there is patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice. Concurrent findings based on evidence are not to be disturbed merely because another view is possible.
Conclusion: No interference in revision was warranted; the concurrent findings were not shown to be perverse or illegal.
Issue (ii): whether the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood unrebutted and the statutory ingredients of the offence were proved.
Analysis: Once issuance of the cheque and signatures thereon were admitted, a presumption arose that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused did not lead defence evidence and a mere statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was insufficient to rebut the presumption. The agreement to sell and the dishonour memo supported the complainant's version, and the notice sent to the correct address attracted the presumption of service. The ingredients of Section 138 were therefore satisfied.
Conclusion: The presumption in favour of the holder was not rebutted and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.
Issue (iii): whether the sentence of imprisonment, compensation, default sentence and deemed service of notice required interference.
Analysis: A sentence of six months' simple imprisonment was not excessive in a cheque dishonour case. Compensation awarded in relation to the cheque amount and delay was not excessive. A default sentence on non-payment of compensation was legally permissible. Service of notice was rightly deemed because the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption arising from dispatch to the correct address and the returned postal endorsement.
Conclusion: No interference was called for with the sentence, compensation, default sentence or finding of deemed service.
Final Conclusion: The revision was found to be without merit and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were affirmed in full.
Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be disturbed absent perversity or jurisdictional error, and once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 continue unless rebutted by probable defence evidence on a preponderance of probabilities.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
