Court upholds conviction in cheque bounce case despite theft claim. Evidence of insufficient funds crucial.

The court condoned a 29-day delay in filing the revision due to reasons provided. The revisionists were convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing cheques with insufficient funds. Despite arguments on handwriting expert opinion and theft of the cheque book, the court upheld the conviction based on evidence of insufficient funds on the cheques. The court found the evidence of the cheques returning due to insufficient funds and belonging to the accused revisionist to be significant, dismissing the revision. The claim of theft of the cheque book by an employee without a police complaint did not alter the court's decision.

---

---

Issues: Delay in filing revision, Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Evidence of handwriting expert, Theft of cheque book

Delay in filing revision:
The judgment addresses a delay of 29 days in filing the revision, which is condoned by the court based on reasons mentioned in the application. The application regarding the delay is disposed of, allowing the revision to proceed.

Conviction under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act:
The main case involves a revision against a judgment affirming the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revisionists were convicted for borrowing a sum of money and issuing cheques that were returned by the bank due to insufficient funds. The lower court found the offence proved, leading to the conviction and sentence, which was upheld in appeal. The court considered arguments regarding the handwriting expert's opinion and the theft of the cheque book but concluded that the evidence of insufficient funds on the cheques was significant, dismissing the revision.

Evidence of handwriting expert:
The revisionists argued that the handwriting expert's opinion should be conclusive proof as the signatures on the cheques differed from the standard signatures of one of the revisionists. However, the court held that the bank's return of the cheques due to insufficient funds was crucial evidence, and the fact that the cheques belonged to the accused revisionist was established. The absence of affirmative evidence from the complainant regarding the handwriting did not alter this conclusion.

Theft of cheque book:
The revisionists claimed that the cheque book was stolen by an employee, but no formal complaint was lodged with the police. Despite this assertion, the court found no grounds to interfere with the lower courts' findings, as the evidence of the cheques being returned with insufficient funds and belonging to the accused revisionist remained strong. Consequently, the court dismissed the revision based on these findings.

---