<?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>2024 (6) TMI 840 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754233</link>
    <description>The Gauhati HC dismissed a revision petition in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court and first appellate court convicted the accused, applying statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The accused&#039;s claim that the cheque was lost was rejected as he failed to file a police complaint, didn&#039;t raise this defense during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and provided no supporting evidence. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding consideration and discharge of liability.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 20 Jun 2024 08:35:33 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=756944" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2024 (6) TMI 840 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754233</link>
      <description>The Gauhati HC dismissed a revision petition in a cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. The accused issued a cheque for Rs. 5,00,000/- which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The trial court and first appellate court convicted the accused, applying statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act. The accused&#039;s claim that the cheque was lost was rejected as he failed to file a police complaint, didn&#039;t raise this defense during examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., and provided no supporting evidence. The HC upheld the conviction, finding the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption regarding consideration and discharge of liability.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 27 May 2024 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=754233</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>