https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370585 The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the importance of evidence, burden of proof, and the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction. The petitioner's arguments regarding the cheque being issued under compromise and not creating a new liability were dismissed. The court found no infirmity in the lower courts' judgments and ruled that the complaint based on the second dishonour of the cheque was maintainable. The revision petition was dismissed, emphasizing that revisionary jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice. en-us Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 20 Nov 2018 07:47:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370585 The High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court emphasized the importance of evidence, burden of proof, and the limited scope of revisionary jurisdiction. The petitioner's arguments regarding the cheque being issued under compromise and not creating a new liability were dismissed. The court found no infirmity in the lower courts' judgments and ruled that the complaint based on the second dishonour of the cheque was maintainable. The revision petition was dismissed, emphasizing that revisionary jurisdiction should only be exercised in exceptional cases of manifest error or miscarriage of justice. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 31 Oct 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=370585