https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760074 Concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were held not to merit revisional interference because the revisional court cannot reassess evidence like an appellate court unless there is perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The cheque had been issued, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice had been served without payment, satisfying the offence ingredients. The defence that the cheque was only a security cheque and that the liability had been repaid failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, since admission of issuance and signature triggered those presumptions and the repayment document did not refer to the cheque in question. Liability under Section 138 was therefore established. en-us Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 16 Oct 2024 08:38:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760074 Concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were held not to merit revisional interference because the revisional court cannot reassess evidence like an appellate court unless there is perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The cheque had been issued, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice had been served without payment, satisfying the offence ingredients. The defence that the cheque was only a security cheque and that the liability had been repaid failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, since admission of issuance and signature triggered those presumptions and the repayment document did not refer to the cheque in question. Liability under Section 138 was therefore established. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 04 Oct 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=760074