https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782670 Revisional interference with a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held unwarranted because revisional jurisdiction is limited to patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or gross miscarriage of justice, and concurrent evidence-based findings were not shown to be defective. The presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted because issuance and signatures on the cheque were admitted, no defence evidence was led, and a mere Section 313 CrPC statement was insufficient; the agreement to sell, dishonour memo and deemed service of notice supported the complaint. The sentence, compensation, default sentence and deemed service of notice were also upheld. en-us Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 Wed, 03 Dec 2025 08:57:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782670 Revisional interference with a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was held unwarranted because revisional jurisdiction is limited to patent illegality, perversity, jurisdictional error or gross miscarriage of justice, and concurrent evidence-based findings were not shown to be defective. The presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained unrebutted because issuance and signatures on the cheque were admitted, no defence evidence was led, and a mere Section 313 CrPC statement was insufficient; the agreement to sell, dishonour memo and deemed service of notice supported the complaint. The sentence, compensation, default sentence and deemed service of notice were also upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 30 Oct 2025 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=782670