https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386059 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the accused admitted business dealings and signature on the cheque, while the plea that the cheque had been misplaced was unsupported by cogent evidence. The absence of defence evidence and the failure to explain why no stop-payment instruction was issued weakened the defence. Statements made at the notice stage and under Section 313 CrPC were treated as no evidence in law and could not, by themselves, rebut the complainant's case. The challenge based on absence of legally recoverable debt and alleged defects in the pre-summoning material did not warrant interference, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 21 Sep 2019 07:22:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386059 Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the accused admitted business dealings and signature on the cheque, while the plea that the cheque had been misplaced was unsupported by cogent evidence. The absence of defence evidence and the failure to explain why no stop-payment instruction was issued weakened the defence. Statements made at the notice stage and under Section 313 CrPC were treated as no evidence in law and could not, by themselves, rebut the complainant's case. The challenge based on absence of legally recoverable debt and alleged defects in the pre-summoning material did not warrant interference, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Sep 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=386059