https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280859 Procedural irregularities in a cheque dishonour trial did not vitiate the proceedings where the accused consented to reliance on evidence already recorded, had opportunities for cross-examination, and showed no prejudice; the conviction was therefore upheld. The court also treated an unclaimed demand notice as constructive receipt for computing limitation under Section 138, found the complaint timely, and held the notice requirement substantially complied with. While the finding of guilt was maintained, the sentence and compensation order were set aside and remanded for fresh hearing, with the trial court directed to reconsider those aspects after hearing both sides. en-us Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 23 May 2019 11:55:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280859 Procedural irregularities in a cheque dishonour trial did not vitiate the proceedings where the accused consented to reliance on evidence already recorded, had opportunities for cross-examination, and showed no prejudice; the conviction was therefore upheld. The court also treated an unclaimed demand notice as constructive receipt for computing limitation under Section 138, found the complaint timely, and held the notice requirement substantially complied with. While the finding of guilt was maintained, the sentence and compensation order were set aside and remanded for fresh hearing, with the trial court directed to reconsider those aspects after hearing both sides. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 09 Aug 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=280859