https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415156 Cheque issuance and signature were admitted, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of enforcement. The accused did not reply to the statutory notice, did not enter the witness box, and failed to rebut those presumptions with credible defence evidence. The alleged material alteration was not accepted as a legal bar, and the insolvency record also contained an admission of cheque issuance. In the absence of perversity, illegality, or error in the concurrent findings, revision interference was unwarranted and remand was declined; the conviction under Section 138 was upheld. en-us Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 29 Nov 2021 08:57:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415156 Cheque issuance and signature were admitted, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of enforcement. The accused did not reply to the statutory notice, did not enter the witness box, and failed to rebut those presumptions with credible defence evidence. The alleged material alteration was not accepted as a legal bar, and the insolvency record also contained an admission of cheque issuance. In the absence of perversity, illegality, or error in the concurrent findings, revision interference was unwarranted and remand was declined; the conviction under Section 138 was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Oct 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415156