Cheque dishonour conviction sustained in revision, but custodial sentence reduced for leniency in the facts of the case.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the High Court noted that the cheque was returned for insufficiency of funds, the statutory notice was not replied to, and the defence of misuse by another person was found improbable. The accused neither entered the witness box nor examined the alleged actual payee, while the complainant's version satisfied the ingredients of the offence. Concurrent findings of guilt were not disturbed in revision because no infirmity or perversity was shown. The conviction was maintained, but the custodial sentence was reduced from one year's rigorous imprisonment to three months, with the fine and default sentence left intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision. (ii) Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds and the statutory notice sent thereafter was not replied to. The defence that the cheque had been issued to another person and later misused was found to be improbable. The accused did not enter the witness box and did not examine the person said to be the actual payee, while the complainant's version satisfied the ingredients of the offence. In revision, interference with concurrent findings is warranted only when there is infirmity or perversity, which was absent.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of one year rigorous imprisonment required interference.

Analysis: While sustaining the conviction, the Court took note of the petitioner's employment and considered the sentence imposed by the courts below to be excessive in the facts of the case. The fine and default sentence were maintained.

Conclusion: The custodial sentence was reduced from one year rigorous imprisonment to three months rigorous imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on the merits of conviction, but the punishment was moderated, leaving the conviction intact while reducing the term of imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a cheque dishonour case may be proved on preponderance of probabilities, and concurrent findings of guilt will not be disturbed in revision absent perversity; however, the sentence may be reduced if the circumstances justify leniency.

---