https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421935 Concurrent findings that the petitioner signed the dishonoured cheques and was indebted to the respondents were not shown to be perverse, so the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not interfered with in revision. The court also held that Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply because no substantive sentence of imprisonment had been imposed; the custody in question related only to the default sentence for non-payment of fine, which is not eligible for set-off. The revision petitions were rejected. en-us Fri, 14 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 05 May 2022 08:33:52 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421935 Concurrent findings that the petitioner signed the dishonoured cheques and was indebted to the respondents were not shown to be perverse, so the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not interfered with in revision. The court also held that Section 428 of the Code of Criminal Procedure did not apply because no substantive sentence of imprisonment had been imposed; the custody in question related only to the default sentence for non-payment of fine, which is not eligible for set-off. The revision petitions were rejected. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 14 Jan 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=421935