https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339319 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because the accused admitted the cheque signature, failed to offer a credible explanation for the cheque's custody, and did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139. The concurrent findings that issuance and execution of the cheque were proved were not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, so revisional interference was unwarranted. The modified sentence and compensation were also upheld because the reduced substantive imprisonment and compensation were not considered excessive in light of the cheque amount, the delay in payment, and the principle that compensation may include interest for dishonour. en-us Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 24 Feb 2017 13:06:10 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339319 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because the accused admitted the cheque signature, failed to offer a credible explanation for the cheque's custody, and did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139. The concurrent findings that issuance and execution of the cheque were proved were not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, so revisional interference was unwarranted. The modified sentence and compensation were also upheld because the reduced substantive imprisonment and compensation were not considered excessive in light of the cheque amount, the delay in payment, and the principle that compensation may include interest for dishonour. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Jan 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=339319