https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428173 Concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not interfered with in revision, as revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and requires perversity, patent illegality, non-consideration of material evidence, or miscarriage of justice before concurrent findings can be disturbed. The cheque transaction and dishonour were proved, and the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 on a preponderance of probabilities; the blank security cheque theory was unsupported. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, but the sentence was modified to restructure the compensation and default sentence in line with the statutory scheme. en-us Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 26 Sep 2022 08:29:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428173 Concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not interfered with in revision, as revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and requires perversity, patent illegality, non-consideration of material evidence, or miscarriage of justice before concurrent findings can be disturbed. The cheque transaction and dishonour were proved, and the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 on a preponderance of probabilities; the blank security cheque theory was unsupported. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, but the sentence was modified to restructure the compensation and default sentence in line with the statutory scheme. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 20 Sep 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428173