https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312829 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution tried as a summons case, an application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC was held to be the wrong procedural route because that provision applies to warrant cases. On the facts pleaded, the complaint and sworn statement showed an agreement of sale, part payment, possession delivered, and cheques issued towards the balance sale consideration and interest. The statutory presumption under Section 138 that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability was not displaced by the claim that the cheques were only security cheques. The refusal to discharge was therefore sustained and the prosecution was left to proceed to trial. en-us Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:01:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312829 In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution tried as a summons case, an application for discharge under Section 245 CrPC was held to be the wrong procedural route because that provision applies to warrant cases. On the facts pleaded, the complaint and sworn statement showed an agreement of sale, part payment, possession delivered, and cheques issued towards the balance sale consideration and interest. The statutory presumption under Section 138 that the cheque was issued for a debt or liability was not displaced by the claim that the cheques were only security cheques. The refusal to discharge was therefore sustained and the prosecution was left to proceed to trial. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Jul 1998 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=312829