https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362261 In a Section 138 prosecution, admission of cheque issuance and outstanding liability attracted the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant, and the conviction was sustained because the accused failed to rebut it with reliable evidence. The defence of alleged badla or forward transactions, and the claim of a private agreement cancelling the cheques, was rejected because it was unsupported by independent proof and the alleged agreement was not binding on the complainant. A belated request to adduce the SEBI report as additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC was also refused for want of necessity. The sentence was then modified from imprisonment to a monetary penalty with compensation. en-us Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 22 Jun 2018 08:04:17 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362261 In a Section 138 prosecution, admission of cheque issuance and outstanding liability attracted the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant, and the conviction was sustained because the accused failed to rebut it with reliable evidence. The defence of alleged badla or forward transactions, and the claim of a private agreement cancelling the cheques, was rejected because it was unsupported by independent proof and the alleged agreement was not binding on the complainant. A belated request to adduce the SEBI report as additional evidence under Section 391 CrPC was also refused for want of necessity. The sentence was then modified from imprisonment to a monetary penalty with compensation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Jun 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=362261