<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2018 (1) TMI 753 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354017</link>
    <description>Section 313 CrPC examination will not vitiate a conviction absent demonstrated prejudice or miscarriage of justice; here, the accused had knowledge of the allegations, led defence evidence, and the plea failed. In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the cheque holder, and the accused must rebut them; on the stated facts, objections based on non-impleadment of the partnership firm and alleged lack of the complainant&#039;s financial capacity were rejected, and the conviction was sustained. As to sentence, the custodial term was viewed as excessive and was reduced, while the fine was maintained to secure payment of the cheque liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Jan 2018 09:26:46 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=504648" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2018 (1) TMI 753 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354017</link>
      <description>Section 313 CrPC examination will not vitiate a conviction absent demonstrated prejudice or miscarriage of justice; here, the accused had knowledge of the allegations, led defence evidence, and the plea failed. In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the cheque holder, and the accused must rebut them; on the stated facts, objections based on non-impleadment of the partnership firm and alleged lack of the complainant&#039;s financial capacity were rejected, and the conviction was sustained. As to sentence, the custodial term was viewed as excessive and was reduced, while the fine was maintained to secure payment of the cheque liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jan 2018 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=354017</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>