https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377670 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the drawer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability with probable and credible material. Denial of signature, shifting claims of theft, absence of an FIR, and the lack of immediate steps for handwriting comparison did not displace the finding, especially where concurrent factual findings existed and revisional interference was limited. The complainant's failure to file an income-tax return, by itself, did not negate the loan transaction. The sentence of admonition and the compensation order were also left undisturbed because no material irregularity or perversity was shown. en-us Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 Apr 2019 07:27:48 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377670 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the drawer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability with probable and credible material. Denial of signature, shifting claims of theft, absence of an FIR, and the lack of immediate steps for handwriting comparison did not displace the finding, especially where concurrent factual findings existed and revisional interference was limited. The complainant's failure to file an income-tax return, by itself, did not negate the loan transaction. The sentence of admonition and the compensation order were also left undisturbed because no material irregularity or perversity was shown. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 07 Mar 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=377670