Statutory notice and cheque liability: part payment did not defeat the claim, while the excessive sentence was corrected.

Part payment after service of statutory notice did not extinguish liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act; the unpaid balance continued to support the cause of action, and no fresh notice was required. The complaint was held within limitation, and the cheque was treated as issued towards an existing liability because the statutory presumption of liability was not rebutted by convincing evidence. The West Bengal Moneylenders Act did not bar the accommodation loan on the facts proved, and the complainant's financial capacity could not defeat the claim after the transaction and part payment. The sentence was corrected because the trial court's fine exceeded the statutory limit; imprisonment was reduced and compensation enhanced.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether acceptance of part payment after issuance of statutory notice rendered the demand notice defective or displaced the cause of action; (ii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation; (iii) whether the cheque was issued in discharge of an existing liability and whether the presumption under the negotiable instruments law stood rebutted; (iv) whether the West Bengal Moneylenders Act barred the transaction or the complainant's financial capacity could defeat the claim; and (v) whether the trial court could impose a fine beyond the statutory limit and what sentence relief, if any, was warranted.

Issue (i): whether acceptance of part payment after issuance of statutory notice rendered the demand notice defective or displaced the cause of action.

Analysis: The liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not wiped out merely because a part payment is made after service of notice. The remaining unpaid liability continues to subsist, and the holder of the cheque can still enforce the cause of action for the balance amount. The Court rejected the contention that part payment by itself required a fresh demand notice.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The statutory sequence under Section 138 and Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was applied. The Court treated the part payment made on 11.03.2000 as relevant to the running of limitation and held that the complaint filed on 14.03.2000 was within time. The complaint was therefore not hit by limitation.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): whether the cheque was issued in discharge of an existing liability and whether the presumption under the negotiable instruments law stood rebutted.

Analysis: The Court applied the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and held that the burden to rebut it lay on the drawer of the cheque. In the absence of convincing evidence to displace the presumption, and in view of the admitted part payment after notice, the cheque was treated as having been issued towards an existing liability.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (iv): whether the West Bengal Moneylenders Act barred the transaction or the complainant's financial capacity could defeat the claim.

Analysis: The Court held that the moneylending statute regulated lending but did not bar an accommodation loan in the facts proved. It further held that the drawer could not successfully challenge the complainant's capacity after the transaction and part payment. The challenge on this score failed.

Conclusion: The issue was decided against the petitioner.

Issue (v): whether the trial court could impose a fine beyond the statutory limit and what sentence relief, if any, was warranted.

Analysis: The Court found that the fine imposed by the trial court exceeded the permissible limit under Section 29 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Invoking its revisional and inherent powers, the Court interfered only to the extent necessary to correct the sentence, converted the fine into compensation under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reduced the substantive imprisonment, and enhanced the compensation amount.

Conclusion: The issue was decided partly in favour of the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the sentence was modified by reducing the term of imprisonment and substituting the fine with enhanced compensation, so the revision succeeded only in part.

Ratio Decidendi: Part payment after statutory notice does not extinguish the criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption of liability remains rebuttable but must be displaced by convincing evidence, and revisional court may correct an excessive sentence while sustaining the conviction.

---