https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436566 In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, a challenge to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on alleged non-service of demand notice and prematurity failed because service is governed by statutory presumptions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and rebuttal of those presumptions is a matter for evidence at trial. The objection that the company was not impleaded also failed because the complaint indicated individual issuance of the cheque and the true nature of the transaction was a disputed factual issue unsuitable for threshold quashing. The Allahabad HC found no illegality in the summoning order and declined interference. en-us Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Apr 2023 08:04:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436566 In proceedings under Section 482 CrPC, a challenge to a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act based on alleged non-service of demand notice and prematurity failed because service is governed by statutory presumptions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, and rebuttal of those presumptions is a matter for evidence at trial. The objection that the company was not impleaded also failed because the complaint indicated individual issuance of the cheque and the true nature of the transaction was a disputed factual issue unsuitable for threshold quashing. The Allahabad HC found no illegality in the summoning order and declined interference. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 16 Mar 2023 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=436566