https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95519 In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under ss.118(a) and 139 after admitting the cheque and signature. Since issuance and signature were not disputed, presumption of legally enforceable debt arose and the accused led no credible rebuttal; the plea of non-receipt of notice failed as no payment was made within 15 days of summons. The revisional court held it could not reappreciate evidence absent perversity and found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the conviction. Compensation equal to the cheque amount was held not excessive. Revision was dismissed - HC en-us Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:35 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95519 In a revision against conviction under s.138 NI Act, the dominant issue was whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under ss.118(a) and 139 after admitting the cheque and signature. Since issuance and signature were not disputed, presumption of legally enforceable debt arose and the accused led no credible rebuttal; the plea of non-receipt of notice failed as no payment was made within 15 days of summons. The revisional court held it could not reappreciate evidence absent perversity and found no jurisdictional error or patent illegality in the conviction. Compensation equal to the cheque amount was held not excessive. Revision was dismissed - HC Highlights Indian Laws Tue, 30 Dec 2025 09:27:34 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95519