<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2022 (4) TMI 356 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420690</link>
    <description>A voluntarily signed blank cheque issued towards payment attracts the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Here, the accused admitted issuance of the cheque, and the complainant&#039;s evidence, including oral testimony and mediator support, established the underlying liability and settlement. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions with cogent evidence, and his Section 313 CrPC stand did not support the pleaded defence that the cheque was only a security instrument. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s source of funds was also raised belatedly and did not disturb the concurrent factual findings, so the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were left undisturbed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 08 Apr 2022 08:02:14 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=675419" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2022 (4) TMI 356 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420690</link>
      <description>A voluntarily signed blank cheque issued towards payment attracts the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Here, the accused admitted issuance of the cheque, and the complainant&#039;s evidence, including oral testimony and mediator support, established the underlying liability and settlement. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions with cogent evidence, and his Section 313 CrPC stand did not support the pleaded defence that the cheque was only a security instrument. The challenge to the complainant&#039;s source of funds was also raised belatedly and did not disturb the concurrent factual findings, so the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were left undisturbed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 23 Mar 2022 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=420690</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>