HC upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Ct and Revisional Ct convicting A1 under s.138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque. It held that at the revisional stage, interference is confined to perversity, patent illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence, none of which was established. The plea that the cheque was obtained under duress and that there was no valid underlying transaction or agreement for refund was rejected, as both courts had correctly drawn and applied the statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act and given cogent reasons for disbelieving the defence. Finding the conviction legally sustainable and the proceedings procedurally proper, HC declined to interfere and dismissed the revision petition, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence.
HC upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Ct and Revisional Ct convicting A1 under s.138 N.I. Act for dishonour of cheque. It held that at the revisional stage, interference is confined to perversity, patent illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence, none of which was established. The plea that the cheque was obtained under duress and that there was no valid underlying transaction or agreement for refund was rejected, as both courts had correctly drawn and applied the statutory presumptions under the N.I. Act and given cogent reasons for disbelieving the defence. Finding the conviction legally sustainable and the proceedings procedurally proper, HC declined to interfere and dismissed the revision petition, thereby affirming the conviction and sentence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
