https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295283 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a bank endorsement that the signature differs is not conclusive of dishonour; the court must examine the evidence to determine the cause of return, and liability is not defeated if execution and genuineness are proved. Once the cheques were shown to have been signed, executed, and issued towards a legally enforceable debt, the presumption under Section 139 operated and was not rebutted by the accused's belated forgery and theft defence. Revisional interference was refused on conviction, but the sentence was modified by setting aside substantive imprisonment and imposing an enhanced compensatory fine. en-us Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 May 2021 12:15:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295283 In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a bank endorsement that the signature differs is not conclusive of dishonour; the court must examine the evidence to determine the cause of return, and liability is not defeated if execution and genuineness are proved. Once the cheques were shown to have been signed, executed, and issued towards a legally enforceable debt, the presumption under Section 139 operated and was not rebutted by the accused's belated forgery and theft defence. Revisional interference was refused on conviction, but the sentence was modified by setting aside substantive imprisonment and imposing an enhanced compensatory fine. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=295283