<?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>2023 (10) TMI 1099 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444876</link>
    <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque was found to have been issued towards part payment of an admitted loan liability, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and followed by valid notice. Documentary evidence supported the complainant&#039;s case, and the accused&#039;s version that only part of the loan had been advanced did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118. The accused failed to establish a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the concurrent findings of guilt disclosed no revisional perversity. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld, with no interference in revision warranted.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 26 Oct 2023 07:25:51 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=730173" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2023 (10) TMI 1099 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444876</link>
      <description>In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque was found to have been issued towards part payment of an admitted loan liability, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and followed by valid notice. Documentary evidence supported the complainant&#039;s case, and the accused&#039;s version that only part of the loan had been advanced did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118. The accused failed to establish a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the concurrent findings of guilt disclosed no revisional perversity. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld, with no interference in revision warranted.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Oct 2023 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=444876</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>