https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292511 Concurrent findings sustaining conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not interfered with in revision because revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional error or perversity and cannot operate as a second appeal. The complainant's evidence proved the loan, cheque issuance, dishonour and statutory notice, while the accused's claim that the cheque was only a security cheque for yarn transactions was unsupported and internally inconsistent. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a credible preponderance of probability, so the conviction and sentence were upheld. en-us Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 27 Dec 2020 01:08:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292511 Concurrent findings sustaining conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not interfered with in revision because revisional jurisdiction is limited to jurisdictional error or perversity and cannot operate as a second appeal. The complainant's evidence proved the loan, cheque issuance, dishonour and statutory notice, while the accused's claim that the cheque was only a security cheque for yarn transactions was unsupported and internally inconsistent. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 on a credible preponderance of probability, so the conviction and sentence were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Jan 2020 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292511