https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791431 Cheque dishonour under Section 138 was sustained where the cheques and signatures were admitted and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the presumption with reliable material showing that liability had been wholly shifted to a third party or that the cheques were only security instruments without enforceable debt. Pendency of civil proceedings or a company petition did not bar the criminal prosecution, and revisional review could not disturb concurrent factual findings absent perversity. However, the First Appellate Court could not enhance the default sentence in an appeal filed only by the accused, so that enhancement was set aside and the trial sentence restored. en-us Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 12 May 2026 08:50:29 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791431 Cheque dishonour under Section 138 was sustained where the cheques and signatures were admitted and the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut the presumption with reliable material showing that liability had been wholly shifted to a third party or that the cheques were only security instruments without enforceable debt. Pendency of civil proceedings or a company petition did not bar the criminal prosecution, and revisional review could not disturb concurrent factual findings absent perversity. However, the First Appellate Court could not enhance the default sentence in an appeal filed only by the accused, so that enhancement was set aside and the trial sentence restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 28 Apr 2026 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=791431