Cheque dishonour conviction sustained where liability, dishonour, and unrebutted statutory notice were proved; revisional interference refused.

Cheque dishonour liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained where evidence showed business dealings between the parties, issuance of cheques towards an existing liability, dishonour for insufficiency of funds or arrangement, and no reply to the statutory notice. The defence that the cheques were misused or stolen was rejected because it was not supported by convincing material, and no prompt stop-payment or similar action was shown. The trial court and appellate court findings were supported by the evidence, so no revisional interference was warranted and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The evidence showed that the accused firm had business dealings with the complainant, that cheque amounts were issued towards an existing liability, and that the cheques were dishonoured for insufficiency of arrangement. The statutory notice evoked no reply and the defence was found to be unsupported by any convincing material. No immediate action such as a stop memo was shown to have been taken if the cheques had in fact been misused or stolen. The findings of the trial court and the appellate court were supported by the evidence and called for no revisional interference.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision petition failed.

---