Section 138 cheque dishonour presumption upheld where notice, non-payment, and unrebutted liability established.

Once issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for account closed, service of statutory notice and non-payment were established, the ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were satisfied and the presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the cheque-holder. The accused failed to rebut that presumption on record, and objections based on absence of a money-lending licence, non-disclosure in income-tax returns, mental disorder, and compromise were not accepted as defeating statutory liability, particularly where some pleas were unraised below. The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision was not entertained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be interfered with on the grounds that the complainant had not proved a legally enforceable debt, that the presumption under Section 139 did not arise, and that the petitioner's plea of mental disorder and compromise defeated liability.

Analysis: The cheque was issued for the admitted amount and was returned unpaid with the remarks "Account Closed". The complainant had served the statutory notice, but the petitioner did not make payment. The Court held that the ingredients of Section 138 were satisfied, and that Section 139 raises a presumption in favour of the cheque-holder which the accused failed to rebut. The objection that the complainant lacked a money-lending licence or had not shown the loan in income-tax returns was not accepted as a ground to negate the statutory liability in the present proceedings. The plea regarding multiple substance abuse disorder with psychotic disorder was also rejected because it had not been raised before the courts below and could not be entertained at the revisional stage. The petitioner's own statement before the lower appellate court acknowledging compromise and part-payment further supported the conclusion against him.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld, and the revision petition was not accepted.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance of the cheque, its dishonour, service of statutory notice, and non-payment are established, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the holder and can be displaced only by a successful rebuttal on record; unraised factual defences and unsubstantiated later pleas do not defeat liability at the revisional stage.

---