https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403259 Concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not interfered with in revision because the cheque alteration was visible, bore a signature beneath the correction, and the evidence supported the complainant's loan transaction; the accused also did not seek handwriting examination or complain of misuse, so no legal infirmity was shown. The sentence, however, was corrected because the trial court's operative order did not properly reflect a fine and compensation structure. The punishment was modified to fine of Rs. 5,000 and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000, with default simple imprisonment for one month. en-us Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jan 2021 10:27:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403259 Concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not interfered with in revision because the cheque alteration was visible, bore a signature beneath the correction, and the evidence supported the complainant's loan transaction; the accused also did not seek handwriting examination or complain of misuse, so no legal infirmity was shown. The sentence, however, was corrected because the trial court's operative order did not properly reflect a fine and compensation structure. The punishment was modified to fine of Rs. 5,000 and compensation of Rs. 2,00,000, with default simple imprisonment for one month. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Jan 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=403259