https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305306 The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent for dishonor of a cheque. The Court found the complaint was filed beyond the 30-day limit from the cause of action. The drawer's liability under Section 138 remains even if the cheque is filled by another unless evidence rebuts the presumption. The case hinged on the timeliness of filing based on notice service. The respondent was convicted under Section 138, sentenced to imprisonment, and ordered to pay compensation for dishonoring the cheque despite demand. The appeal was allowed, overturning the acquittal and affirming the respondent's guilt. en-us Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 28 Nov 2022 14:45:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305306 The appellant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act against the respondent for dishonor of a cheque. The Court found the complaint was filed beyond the 30-day limit from the cause of action. The drawer's liability under Section 138 remains even if the cheque is filled by another unless evidence rebuts the presumption. The case hinged on the timeliness of filing based on notice service. The respondent was convicted under Section 138, sentenced to imprisonment, and ordered to pay compensation for dishonoring the cheque despite demand. The appeal was allowed, overturning the acquittal and affirming the respondent's guilt. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 30 May 2006 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=305306