https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424484 Belated production of an authorisation letter for filing a cheque dishonour complaint was treated as a curable technical defect, so maintainability was not affected. The alleged takeover or merger of the complainant company was also rejected as a bar to prosecution because the complainant's separate legal existence remained unshaken and the defence evidence was not convincing. Once issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated for the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it with cogent evidence; conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained. Compensation was also upheld despite the absence of separate pleadings of loss. en-us Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 02 Jul 2022 09:11:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424484 Belated production of an authorisation letter for filing a cheque dishonour complaint was treated as a curable technical defect, so maintainability was not affected. The alleged takeover or merger of the complainant company was also rejected as a bar to prosecution because the complainant's separate legal existence remained unshaken and the defence evidence was not convincing. Once issuance and signature on the cheque were admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated for the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut it with cogent evidence; conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained. Compensation was also upheld despite the absence of separate pleadings of loss. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Jun 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=424484