https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105466 The Special Court's jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Special Court Act was held to depend on whether the securities transactions themselves fell within the statutory period, not on the later date of the alleged offence; the preliminary objection therefore failed. In relation to the dishonoured cheques, the admitted execution and dishonour triggered the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut them with credible evidence; the defence version remained unproved, so liability under section 138 was established. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. en-us Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Dec 2013 10:45:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105466 The Special Court's jurisdiction under section 3(2) of the Special Court Act was held to depend on whether the securities transactions themselves fell within the statutory period, not on the later date of the alleged offence; the preliminary objection therefore failed. In relation to the dishonoured cheques, the admitted execution and dishonour triggered the presumptions under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut them with credible evidence; the defence version remained unproved, so liability under section 138 was established. The conviction and sentence were affirmed. Case-Laws Companies Law Wed, 11 Jul 2001 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=105466