https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417834 The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of liability. The petitioner's argument that the cheque was a security cheque and offer to settle for 25% of the amount were rejected. Legal precedents established that even if a cheque is for security, liability remains. The court dismissed the Criminal Revision and upheld the sentencing, emphasizing the legal obligations under the Act. en-us Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 03 Feb 2022 07:33:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417834 The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, as the petitioner failed to rebut the presumption of liability. The petitioner's argument that the cheque was a security cheque and offer to settle for 25% of the amount were rejected. Legal precedents established that even if a cheque is for security, liability remains. The court dismissed the Criminal Revision and upheld the sentencing, emphasizing the legal obligations under the Act. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=417834