https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298904 In a Section 138 prosecution, a power of attorney holder is competent to testify to facts within his own knowledge, though not to matters known only to the principal, so his evidence was not inadmissible in law. Once cheque execution and issuance were shown, the Section 139 presumption operated for the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it because signature was admitted, delivery was not disputed, no reply was sent to notice, and no defence evidence was led. The conviction was therefore sustained, but the sentence was softened by reducing custodial punishment to imprisonment till the rising of court while enhancing compensation and retaining a default term. en-us Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 26 Nov 2021 17:27:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298904 In a Section 138 prosecution, a power of attorney holder is competent to testify to facts within his own knowledge, though not to matters known only to the principal, so his evidence was not inadmissible in law. Once cheque execution and issuance were shown, the Section 139 presumption operated for the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it because signature was admitted, delivery was not disputed, no reply was sent to notice, and no defence evidence was led. The conviction was therefore sustained, but the sentence was softened by reducing custodial punishment to imprisonment till the rising of court while enhancing compensation and retaining a default term. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 12 Jul 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=298904