Cheque dishonour liability upheld as statutory presumption remained unrebutted; imprisonment was replaced with a fine and compensation.

A cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 with credible evidence. The Court noted that no reply was sent to the statutory notice and that the pleas of lost cheque, stop payment, or incomplete signature were unsupported and insufficient to displace the complainant's case, so the conviction was sustained. On sentence, the Court gave weight to the compensatory nature of cheque dishonour proceedings and modified the punishment by substituting imprisonment with a fine, directing compensation to the complainant from the fine amount.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable on the evidence and materials on record. (ii) Whether the sentence required interference and modification in the revisional jurisdiction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable on the evidence and materials on record.

Analysis: The cheque was proved to have been issued towards a legally enforceable liability and its dishonour was supported by the dishonour memo showing insufficiency of funds along with other reasons. The accused did not send any reply to the statutory notice, did not adduce evidence to support the plea of lost cheque or stop payment, and did not effectively rebut the statutory presumption arising under Section 139. Mere reliance on incomplete signature or stop payment, without proof that the cheque was not issued by the accused or that the defence was probable, was held insufficient to displace the complainant's case.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and found justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required interference and modification in the revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The Court treated the compensatory aspect of cheque dishonour cases as having priority and considered the prolonged retention of the complainant's money. While sustaining the conviction, it altered the mode of punishment by substituting imprisonment with a fine calibrated to the amount and delay, with compensation directed to be paid from the fine and the balance credited to the State.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by substituting imprisonment with a fine and directing payment of compensation from the fine amount.

Final Conclusion: The revision was disposed of by affirming guilt under Section 138, while altering the punishment to a fine with compensation payable to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracts liability under Section 138, and the drawer must rebut the statutory presumption with credible evidence; unsubstantiated pleas such as incomplete signature or stop payment do not, by themselves, defeat conviction.

---