https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761617 Once the cheque and the accused's signature were admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied, and the accused failed to rebut it with credible evidence; the conviction for cheque dishonour was therefore upheld in revision, as no patent factual or jurisdictional error was shown. The sentence was, however, modified because the trial court had imposed an enhanced fine and a separate amount towards State expenses without special reasons; the fine was reduced and the State-expense component was deleted, with the reduced amount directed as compensation. en-us Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 08:26:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761617 Once the cheque and the accused's signature were admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act applied, and the accused failed to rebut it with credible evidence; the conviction for cheque dishonour was therefore upheld in revision, as no patent factual or jurisdictional error was shown. The sentence was, however, modified because the trial court had imposed an enhanced fine and a separate amount towards State expenses without special reasons; the fine was reduced and the State-expense component was deleted, with the reduced amount directed as compensation. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 04 Nov 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=761617