<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2021 (5) TMI 563 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407684</link>
    <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rendered unsustainable merely because it does not expressly state that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, since the presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder unless rebutted. The complaint remained maintainable because it otherwise disclosed the ingredients of the offence. Omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses with the complaint before issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown. The petition to quash the process order was dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 08:31:38 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644525" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2021 (5) TMI 563 - JAMMU AND KASHMIR HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407684</link>
      <description>A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not rendered unsustainable merely because it does not expressly state that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, since the presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder unless rebutted. The complaint remained maintainable because it otherwise disclosed the ingredients of the offence. Omission to file the list of prosecution witnesses with the complaint before issuance of process under Section 204 CrPC was treated as a curable procedural irregularity, not a jurisdictional defect, and no prejudice or failure of justice was shown. The petition to quash the process order was dismissed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 17 May 2021 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=407684</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>