https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94278 The HC dismissed the petition challenging conviction under s.138 IPC (dishonour of cheque), holding that the trial court's findings, based on P.W.1 and documentary proof, were supported by evidence and not vitiated by any legal infirmity, perversity or absence of evidence; allegations of payment against the cheque and non-issuance were unsupported. The HC refused to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 or inherent jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC to re-appreciate evidence, reiterating that such powers permit interference only for jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or manifest miscarriage of justice. The court also held the complaint maintainable, the company's authority being substantiated by board resolutions, and accordingly dismissed the petition. en-us Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:44 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94278 The HC dismissed the petition challenging conviction under s.138 IPC (dishonour of cheque), holding that the trial court's findings, based on P.W.1 and documentary proof, were supported by evidence and not vitiated by any legal infirmity, perversity or absence of evidence; allegations of payment against the cheque and non-issuance were unsupported. The HC refused to exercise supervisory jurisdiction under Art.227 or inherent jurisdiction under s.482 CrPC to re-appreciate evidence, reiterating that such powers permit interference only for jurisdictional error, patent illegality, or manifest miscarriage of justice. The court also held the complaint maintainable, the company's authority being substantiated by board resolutions, and accordingly dismissed the petition. Highlights Indian Laws Wed, 19 Nov 2025 08:52:42 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=94278