https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428702 The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in not applying the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant and in wrongly treating the Agreement as a contingent contract. The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment, and ordered to pay double the cheque amount as compensation. Failure to pay the compensation would result in an additional three months of imprisonment. The accused was directed to surrender within 15 days, with a warrant for arrest to be issued if he failed to do so. en-us Mon, 03 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 08 Oct 2022 13:08:58 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428702 The High Court found that the Magistrate erred in not applying the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act in favor of the complainant and in wrongly treating the Agreement as a contingent contract. The accused was convicted under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentenced to six months of simple imprisonment, and ordered to pay double the cheque amount as compensation. Failure to pay the compensation would result in an additional three months of imprisonment. The accused was directed to surrender within 15 days, with a warrant for arrest to be issued if he failed to do so. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 03 Oct 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=428702