https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463184 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque, dishonour, notice, and service were proved, and the admitted signature triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused was required to raise a probable defence, but produced no reply notice or defence evidence; objections about the loan date, non-production of the bond, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act did not rebut the presumption or make the transaction unenforceable. In revision, interference was confined to illegality, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice, and none was shown; the concurrent conviction was therefore upheld. en-us Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 13 Aug 2025 06:44:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463184 Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque, dishonour, notice, and service were proved, and the admitted signature triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused was required to raise a probable defence, but produced no reply notice or defence evidence; objections about the loan date, non-production of the bond, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act did not rebut the presumption or make the transaction unenforceable. In revision, interference was confined to illegality, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice, and none was shown; the concurrent conviction was therefore upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 18 Nov 2022 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=463184