<?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>2009 (8) TMI 1262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295085</link>
    <description>In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be quashed if the accused produces materials showing that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The Court held that, for this limited purpose, it may examine the complaint, reply notice and other relied-upon materials to test whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 has been rebutted. It further reiterated that the presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, not by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Applying that standard, the materials produced by the accused were sufficient to displace the presumption and justify quashing.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 18 May 2021 17:01:13 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=644560" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2009 (8) TMI 1262 - MADRAS HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295085</link>
      <description>In a petition under Section 482 CrPC, criminal proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act may be quashed if the accused produces materials showing that continuation of the prosecution would amount to abuse of process. The Court held that, for this limited purpose, it may examine the complaint, reply notice and other relied-upon materials to test whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 has been rebutted. It further reiterated that the presumption is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilities, not by proof beyond reasonable doubt. Applying that standard, the materials produced by the accused were sufficient to displace the presumption and justify quashing.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295085</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>