<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2017 (7) TMI 1433 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305073</link>
    <description>In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the complaint and statutory notice failed to disclose material particulars of the underlying transaction, including the nature of dealings, relevant dates and the circumstances of cheque delivery, which impaired the accused&#039;s fair opportunity to defend and rendered the prosecution unsustainable. The complainant also failed to prove the source of funds, the alleged agreement, or supporting witness evidence needed to invoke the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. On these facts, the statutory presumptions could not be drawn and the conviction was set aside, resulting in acquittal.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 15 Nov 2022 10:47:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=695790" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2017 (7) TMI 1433 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305073</link>
      <description>In a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution, the complaint and statutory notice failed to disclose material particulars of the underlying transaction, including the nature of dealings, relevant dates and the circumstances of cheque delivery, which impaired the accused&#039;s fair opportunity to defend and rendered the prosecution unsustainable. The complainant also failed to prove the source of funds, the alleged agreement, or supporting witness evidence needed to invoke the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139. On these facts, the statutory presumptions could not be drawn and the conviction was set aside, resulting in acquittal.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Wed, 26 Jul 2017 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305073</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>