https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390774 Where cheque issuance and dishonour were admitted, the court held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with credible evidence. The defence that the cheques were only advance consultancy payments was rejected because the record, including the loan agreement, showed they were issued towards repayment of a loan liability, so conviction under Section 138 was justified. On limitation, the complaint was treated as in time because the appellate court accepted that prolonged cease work by the Bar explained the delay, and no basis was found to disturb that factual finding. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. en-us Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 11 Jan 2020 06:51:59 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390774 Where cheque issuance and dishonour were admitted, the court held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with credible evidence. The defence that the cheques were only advance consultancy payments was rejected because the record, including the loan agreement, showed they were issued towards repayment of a loan liability, so conviction under Section 138 was justified. On limitation, the complaint was treated as in time because the appellate court accepted that prolonged cease work by the Bar explained the delay, and no basis was found to disturb that factual finding. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 20 Dec 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=390774