<?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>2006 (8) TMI 693 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309291</link>
    <description>In a Section 138 prosecution, the Section 139 presumption operates once the factual foundation is established, and the accused need only show a practical probability against liability on the balance of probabilities. The Court noted that rebuttal may be drawn from defence evidence, admissions, inconsistencies in the complainant&#039;s case, cross-examination, and surrounding circumstances. On the facts, the admitted signature, cheque possession, absence of reply to notice, and inconsistent defence versions meant the presumption was not rebutted, so conviction was sustained. However, considering the nature of the offence, delay, and compensatory sentencing, the punishment was reduced and compensation directed instead of a harsher custodial sentence.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:46:49 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=723326" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (8) TMI 693 - KERALA HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309291</link>
      <description>In a Section 138 prosecution, the Section 139 presumption operates once the factual foundation is established, and the accused need only show a practical probability against liability on the balance of probabilities. The Court noted that rebuttal may be drawn from defence evidence, admissions, inconsistencies in the complainant&#039;s case, cross-examination, and surrounding circumstances. On the facts, the admitted signature, cheque possession, absence of reply to notice, and inconsistent defence versions meant the presumption was not rebutted, so conviction was sustained. However, considering the nature of the offence, delay, and compensatory sentencing, the punishment was reduced and compensation directed instead of a harsher custodial sentence.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=309291</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>