https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415902 Once execution, signature and handing over of the cheque were proved through the complainant's evidence and supporting witness, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder. The accused failed to adduce probable evidence to rebut those presumptions or to support the plea that the cheque had been issued blank in an earlier transaction. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concurrent factual findings are not to be reappreciated unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision. en-us Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Dec 2021 08:51:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415902 Once execution, signature and handing over of the cheque were proved through the complainant's evidence and supporting witness, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder. The accused failed to adduce probable evidence to rebut those presumptions or to support the plea that the cheque had been issued blank in an earlier transaction. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concurrent factual findings are not to be reappreciated unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 Dec 2021 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=415902