https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785807 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable where the cheque and transaction related to a sole proprietorship's trade name, because the proprietor and the concern are not distinct legal persons. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained intact since the cheque issue, dishonour, and notice were proved, while the defence of misuse of a blank signed cheque was unsupported and did not show a probable defence. Revisional interference was unwarranted because Section 397 CrPC permits only limited scrutiny, and no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity was shown in the concurrent conviction. en-us Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 02 Feb 2026 08:20:14 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785807 A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was maintainable where the cheque and transaction related to a sole proprietorship's trade name, because the proprietor and the concern are not distinct legal persons. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 remained intact since the cheque issue, dishonour, and notice were proved, while the defence of misuse of a blank signed cheque was unsupported and did not show a probable defence. Revisional interference was unwarranted because Section 397 CrPC permits only limited scrutiny, and no perversity, illegality, or material infirmity was shown in the concurrent conviction. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 30 Jan 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=785807