https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776136 A Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution was upheld because the complainant gave a plausible explanation for the source of funds, referring to contract receipts and cash transactions, which was sufficient on the facts to shift the burden back to the accused. The accused led no defence evidence and sent no reply notice, and the concurrent findings on the offence were not shown to suffer from illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The conviction was maintained, but the revisional court reduced the substantive custodial sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, while preserving the fine, default sentence and compensation direction. en-us Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 06 Aug 2025 08:19:21 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776136 A Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act prosecution was upheld because the complainant gave a plausible explanation for the source of funds, referring to contract receipts and cash transactions, which was sufficient on the facts to shift the burden back to the accused. The accused led no defence evidence and sent no reply notice, and the concurrent findings on the offence were not shown to suffer from illegality, irregularity or impropriety. The conviction was maintained, but the revisional court reduced the substantive custodial sentence to imprisonment till the rising of the court, while preserving the fine, default sentence and compensation direction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 10 Jul 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=776136