https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303450 In a Section 138 prosecution, proof of cheque issuance, dishonour, notice and non-payment raised the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt, and the accused failed to rebut it with cogent evidence. Technical objections based on an alleged collateral purpose, absence of enforceable liability, revalidation of the cheque, and a difference between the cheque amount and notice amount did not displace that presumption, so the conviction was restored. The sentencing direction was also modified: the substantive fine was maintained, the default sentence was set aside, and the entire fine amount was directed to be paid to the complainant. en-us Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 23 Jul 2022 13:55:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303450 In a Section 138 prosecution, proof of cheque issuance, dishonour, notice and non-payment raised the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally recoverable debt, and the accused failed to rebut it with cogent evidence. Technical objections based on an alleged collateral purpose, absence of enforceable liability, revalidation of the cheque, and a difference between the cheque amount and notice amount did not displace that presumption, so the conviction was restored. The sentencing direction was also modified: the substantive fine was maintained, the default sentence was set aside, and the entire fine amount was directed to be paid to the complainant. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 20 Mar 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=303450