https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274319 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as a valid exercise of Parliament's power because its true character concerns banking and cheques, even though it incidentally affects debtor-creditor relations. The court held that exclusion of mens rea does not make the provision arbitrary, since the scheme imposes strict liability with notice and payment safeguards. It also upheld the differential treatment of companies and individuals as based on a reasonable classification, rejected the reading that "fails to make payment" means failure without reasonable cause, and found the section 139 presumption to be a rebuttable rule of evidence that does not offend Article 20(3). Section 22 of the SICA was held not to bar prosecution under section 138. en-us Fri, 27 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 07 Aug 2018 15:27:20 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274319 Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was treated as a valid exercise of Parliament's power because its true character concerns banking and cheques, even though it incidentally affects debtor-creditor relations. The court held that exclusion of mens rea does not make the provision arbitrary, since the scheme imposes strict liability with notice and payment safeguards. It also upheld the differential treatment of companies and individuals as based on a reasonable classification, rejected the reading that "fails to make payment" means failure without reasonable cause, and found the section 139 presumption to be a rebuttable rule of evidence that does not offend Article 20(3). Section 22 of the SICA was held not to bar prosecution under section 138. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 27 Jan 1995 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274319