Cheque dishonour liability survives signature-difference endorsement when execution is proved and statutory presumptions remain unrebutted.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a bank endorsement that the signature differs is not conclusive of dishonour; the court must examine the evidence to determine the cause of return, and liability is not defeated if execution and genuineness are proved. Once the cheques were shown to have been signed, executed, and issued towards a legally enforceable debt, the presumption under Section 139 operated and was not rebutted by the accused's belated forgery and theft defence. Revisional interference was refused on conviction, but the sentence was modified by setting aside substantive imprisonment and imposing an enhanced compensatory fine.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a cheque ceases to attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because the bank returns it with the endorsement that the signature differs. (ii) Whether the concurrent findings that the cheques were executed and issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and that the statutory presumptions stood unrebutted, warranted interference in revision. (iii) Whether the sentence required interference and modification.

Issue (i): Whether a cheque ceases to attract liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act merely because the bank returns it with the endorsement that the signature differs.

Analysis: The court held that the banker's endorsement is not conclusive of the real cause of dishonour. Even where the cheque is returned with an additional ground such as signature difference, the court must ascertain from the evidence whether the actual reason for dishonour was insufficiency of funds. If the signature is in fact genuine and execution is proved, the cheque remains a cheque and the statutory liability is not defeated by the endorsement alone.

Conclusion: The endorsement that the signature differs did not by itself take the case out of Section 138, and the finding of culpability was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the concurrent findings that the cheques were executed and issued towards a legally enforceable debt, and that the statutory presumptions stood unrebutted, warranted interference in revision.

Analysis: The complainant's oral evidence, the surrounding documentary material, and the accused's own reply notice supported the finding that the cheques were signed, executed, and handed over by the accused. Once execution was proved, the presumption under Section 139 operated. The accused did not discharge the burden of rebutting that presumption, and the belated defence of forgery and theft was found unacceptable. The court also held that reference to admitted and disputed signatures for corroborative comparison was not impermissible on the facts, and that refusal to send the cheques for expert opinion at the appellate stage did not cause illegality.

Conclusion: The findings of guilt and conviction under Section 138 were upheld and did not call for revisional interference.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence required interference and modification.

Analysis: Considering the lapse of time, the nature of the transaction, and the need to secure adequate compensation to the complainant, the court held that the substantive imprisonment could be set aside and the fine enhanced, with compensation directed under Section 357(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by setting aside the substantive imprisonment and increasing the fine with consequential compensation.

Final Conclusion: The convictions were left undisturbed, but the punishment was substantially altered to a compensatory fine structure in place of substantive imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the banker's endorsement is not conclusive; the court must determine the real cause of dishonour from the evidence, and once execution of the cheque is proved, the presumption of liability operates until rebutted by the accused.

---