https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429613 A Lok Adalat settlement did not bar continuation of a Section 138 NI Act prosecution where the terms expressly allowed the complainant to proceed if payment was not made, so the complaint remained maintainable. Admission of signatures on the cheques triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and a blank-cheque defence without evidence of repayment or absence of liability was insufficient to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional interference was also unwarranted because concurrent findings are disturbed only for perversity, patent illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence. The conviction, sentence, fine, and compensation were therefore left undisturbed. en-us Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 02 Nov 2022 09:11:02 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429613 A Lok Adalat settlement did not bar continuation of a Section 138 NI Act prosecution where the terms expressly allowed the complainant to proceed if payment was not made, so the complaint remained maintainable. Admission of signatures on the cheques triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and a blank-cheque defence without evidence of repayment or absence of liability was insufficient to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional interference was also unwarranted because concurrent findings are disturbed only for perversity, patent illegality, or non-consideration of material evidence. The conviction, sentence, fine, and compensation were therefore left undisturbed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 01 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=429613