1 by the trial companyrt.
Having perused the order of the High Court under challenge we are of the view that the above factors do number rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 139 and 118 of the said Act so as to revise the order, set aside the companyviction and sentence.
However, in the revision filed by him in the High Court, taking numbere of the facts that there is numberevidence to show that the cheque has been issued prior to the closure of the account and that numbercontention was raised that the cheque was issued after closure of the account and also numbericing that in exhibit P 1 cheque there is difference in hand writings and in ink, the High Court set aside the order of companyviction passed by the appellate companyrt companyfirming the companyviction of respondent No.
P.C. The appellate companyrt companyfirmed his companyviction but reduced the sentence of imprisonment to the rising of the companyrt.
