Cheque dishonour conviction sustained as revision faced custody-based maintainability doubts and no perversity was shown.

A criminal revision against concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour raised a maintainability issue because the petitioner had not surrendered after the appeal was dismissed. The court noted serious doubt on maintainability, observing that suspension of sentence in revision under Section 401 CrPC could be considered only when the petitioner was in custody, and no prior suspension had been granted by the lower appellate court. On merits, the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, notice, and non-payment established liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and no illegality or perversity was shown in the concurrent findings. No interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the criminal revision petition was maintainable without the petitioner surrendering after dismissal of the appeal; (ii) Whether any ground was made out for interference with the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque.

Issue (i): Whether the criminal revision petition was maintainable without the petitioner surrendering after dismissal of the appeal?

Analysis: The petitioner approached the revisional court after dismissal of the appeal without surrendering before the lower appellate court. The order noted serious doubt about such maintainability and observed that suspension of sentence in revision under Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, could be considered only when the petitioner was in custody. It was also noticed that no prior suspension of sentence had been granted by the lower appellate court.

Conclusion: The petition was not treated as maintainable on that footing.

Issue (ii): Whether any ground was made out for interference with the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque?

Analysis: The complaint was based on issuance of a cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable liability, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and failure to pay despite notice. The evidence of the complainant supported the transaction and the cheque liability, and both courts below had returned concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. No illegality or perversity in those findings was demonstrated.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the conviction and sentence.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge failed and the conviction and sentence recorded under the cheque dishonour law were left undisturbed.

---