The HC upheld the conviction of A1 under S.138 NI Act, affirming the findings of the Trial Ct and Appellate Ct. A1 admitted his signatures on the cheques, thereby attracting statutory presumptions under Ss.118, 139 and 20 NI Act that the instruments were issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The defence that the cheques were given blank for a property transaction, and not in discharge of liability, was held unsubstantiated, as A1 failed to produce cogent evidence, independent witnesses, or documents to rebut the presumptions. The HC further held that any breach of S.269SS IT Act does not render the debt unenforceable for S.138 NI Act. Finding no perversity or illegality, the HC maintained the sentence and dismissed the revision petition.
The HC upheld the conviction of A1 under S.138 NI Act, affirming the findings of the Trial Ct and Appellate Ct. A1 admitted his signatures on the cheques, thereby attracting statutory presumptions under Ss.118, 139 and 20 NI Act that the instruments were issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The defence that the cheques were given blank for a property transaction, and not in discharge of liability, was held unsubstantiated, as A1 failed to produce cogent evidence, independent witnesses, or documents to rebut the presumptions. The HC further held that any breach of S.269SS IT Act does not render the debt unenforceable for S.138 NI Act. Finding no perversity or illegality, the HC maintained the sentence and dismissed the revision petition.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
