Cheque dishonour presumption upheld as unrebutted evidence sustained conviction, while fine was adjusted to fit magistrate limits.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, the court found that presentation of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, and that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; the conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld. The court also held that the fine imposed by the Magistrate exceeded the permissible limit under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so the sentence was modified by treating part of the amount as compensation while leaving the conviction undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved and the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted. (ii) Whether the sentence of fine imposed by the Magistrate required modification in view of the limit on the power to impose fine under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Issue (i): Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved and the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The cheque, dishonour memo, demand notice, postal acknowledgment, and reply notice established presentation of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within the prescribed period. The evidence of the complainant and supporting witnesses was accepted as proving the underlying transaction and issuance of the cheque. The accused did not adduce cogent evidence to rebut the statutory presumption attached to the cheque.

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

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of fine imposed by the Magistrate required modification in view of the limit on the power to impose fine under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The sentence of fine as imposed was found to be beyond the monetary limit of a Magistrate of the first class. The Court therefore adjusted the sentence so that only a limited amount operated as fine and the balance was treated as compensation payable to the complainant.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified to conform to the statutory limit, while maintaining the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed, the conviction remained undisturbed, and only the sentence was adjusted by reallocating the amount between fine and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once issuance, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are proved, the statutory presumption stands unless rebutted by credible defence evidence; where the Magistrate's fine exceeds the permissible limit, the sentence may be modified by treating part of the amount as compensation without disturbing the conviction.

---