Extended limitation requires willful misstatement or suppression with intent to evade; mere misclassification does not sustain confiscation or penalty...
The High Court held that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applied once bank records proved presentation and dishonour of the cheque, and the demand notice was admittedly received. The absence of a reverse signature, deposit slip, or a dishonour entry in the account statement did not discredit the bank evidence, particularly where the branch merger and CBS procedure explained the transaction trail. The accused failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the existence of debt and liability was proved. The Court also held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or failure of justice, and therefore upheld the concurrent conviction and sentence.
The High Court held that the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act applied once bank records proved presentation and dishonour of the cheque, and the demand notice was admittedly received. The absence of a reverse signature, deposit slip, or a dishonour entry in the account statement did not discredit the bank evidence, particularly where the branch merger and CBS procedure explained the transaction trail. The accused failed to rebut the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities, so the existence of debt and liability was proved. The Court also held that revisional jurisdiction does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity, jurisdictional error, or failure of justice, and therefore upheld the concurrent conviction and sentence.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4817 
Join Channel 
