The HC affirmed the concurrent findings of the MM and the ASJ, holding that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act that the dishonoured cheques represented a legally enforceable debt. The accused did not testify or produce cogent corroborative evidence (bank statements, dated delivery of purported security cheques, or valid receipts) to prove that the instruments were mere security or that the debt was discharged. The limitation plea was rejected, including on the basis of written acknowledgement and Section 25(3) Indian Contract Act principles. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
The HC affirmed the concurrent findings of the MM and the ASJ, holding that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 NI Act that the dishonoured cheques represented a legally enforceable debt. The accused did not testify or produce cogent corroborative evidence (bank statements, dated delivery of purported security cheques, or valid receipts) to prove that the instruments were mere security or that the debt was discharged. The limitation plea was rejected, including on the basis of written acknowledgement and Section 25(3) Indian Contract Act principles. The conviction and sentence were upheld and the criminal revision petition is dismissed.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4827 
Join Channel 
