Cheque dishonour presumption and notice service under Section 138 upheld, sustaining conviction for legally enforceable liability.

Proof of execution of a cheque triggered the statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut it with evidence; the cheques were therefore treated as issued towards liability. Service of the Section 138 demand notice was also presumed on dispatch to the correct address, supported by postal records, while the cheque presentation and complaint were found to be within limitation. On these findings, the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and the revisional challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheques were issued towards consideration and a legally enforceable liability, and whether the statutory presumption stood rebutted. (ii) Whether the demand notice under Section 138 was duly served and the cheque presentation and complaint were within the permissible period.

Issue (i): Whether the cheques were issued towards consideration and a legally enforceable liability, and whether the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: The cheques were proved to have been issued and signed by the petitioner. Once execution of the cheques was established, the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of consideration and liability. The petitioner did not adduce material to rebut that presumption. The explanation regarding the difference between the cheque amount and the amount claimed was accepted on the evidence, and the concurrent findings of the courts below on existence of liability were based on evidence and statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The cheques were held to have been issued for consideration and the presumption was not rebutted, against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether the demand notice under Section 138 was duly served and the cheque presentation and complaint were within the permissible period.

Analysis: The record contained the demand notice, postal acknowledgment, and certificate of posting. A presumption of service arose from dispatch to the correct address, and mere denial by the petitioner was insufficient to displace it. The cheques were presented twice before issuance of notice, dishonoured on both occasions, and the complaint was filed within limitation. No procedural illegality was shown.

Conclusion: The statutory notice was held duly served and the proceedings under Section 138 were held to be in time, against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained, and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of execution of a cheque raises a statutory presumption of consideration and liability, which must be rebutted by evidence; service of notice is presumed when sent to the correct address by registered post and related postal proof is produced.

---