Conviction upheld under Negotiable Instruments Act, fine imposed, statutory presumption unrebutted.

The High Court upheld the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, imposing a fine of Rs. 40,000 with a default sentence of three months' simple imprisonment. The court found the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Act was not rebutted, rejected claims of duress and alcohol influence in issuing the cheques, and deemed the notices under Section 138 as legal. Despite the petitioner's plea for leniency due to personal circumstances, the court affirmed the sentence's adequacy, dismissing the revision petitions and maintaining the lower courts' decisions.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
2. Whether the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Act was rebutted.
3. Legality of the notices issued under Section 138 of the Act.
4. Alleged duress and influence of alcohol in executing the cheques.
5. Adequacy of the sentence imposed.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:
The petitioner was found guilty of committing an offense under Section 138 of the Act, resulting in a sentence to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000 and, in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months in each case. The trial court's findings were upheld by the appellate court, which noted no infirmity in the legal or factual conclusions that led to the conviction.

2. Whether the Statutory Presumption under Section 118 of the Act was Rebutted:
The petitioner argued that the cheques were issued under duress and the influence of alcohol. However, the court noted that the statutory presumption under Section 118(a) of the Act, which presumes consideration for every negotiable instrument, was not rebutted. The petitioner admitted to signing the cheques, and there was no evidence to support the claim of duress or alcohol influence. The court referenced several Supreme Court judgments, including *K. Bhaskaran v. Sankaran Vaidhyan Balan* and *Hiten P. Dalal v. Bratindranath Banerjee*, which emphasized that the burden of rebutting the presumption lies on the accused, a burden the petitioner failed to discharge.

3. Legality of the Notices Issued under Section 138 of the Act:
The petitioner did not contest the receipt or legality of the notices issued under Section 138. The court observed that notices were sent telegraphically, by registered post, and under certificate of posting, and the petitioner had the opportunity to respond but failed to do so. The court found no defect in the notices.

4. Alleged Duress and Influence of Alcohol in Executing the Cheques:
The petitioner claimed that the cheques were signed under duress and the influence of alcohol. The court found this claim unsubstantiated, noting that the petitioner did not inform the complainant not to present the cheques or highlight the circumstances under which they were issued. The court also noted that the petitioner's communication to the bank regarding stop payment did not mention any duress or alcohol influence.

5. Adequacy of the Sentence Imposed:
The petitioner requested a reduction in the sentence, citing personal hardships, including being the sole breadwinner with three daughters of marriageable age. The court observed that the sentence was already lenient, consisting only of a fine with simple imprisonment in default of payment. The court rejected the plea for further leniency, noting that the petitioner had been lightly dealt with despite the offense being established.

Conclusion:
The High Court dismissed the revision petitions, upheld the conviction and sentence, and directed the registry to place an authenticated copy of the judgment on the files of related criminal revision cases. The court found no merit in the arguments presented by the petitioner and confirmed the findings of the lower courts.

---