Cheque dishonour liability upheld where admissions, cheque issuance, and notice service established; enhanced sentence also sustained.

Where cheques were issued towards repayment, funds and liability were admitted, and demand notice was received, the Delhi HC upheld conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act. A defence based on a share purchase agreement and alleged investment arrangement failed because it was unsupported by proof and was not shown to have been acted upon. The Court also upheld enhancement of sentence, noting the revisionist's admission of liability and repeated delay in the proceedings, and found no exceptional ground to interfere. Both revision petitions were dismissed and the conviction and enhanced sentence remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction of the revisionist for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with; (ii) Whether the order enhancing the sentence called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction of the revisionist for offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: The record showed that the complainant advanced money to the revisionist and that the revisionist executed promissory notes, issued cheques towards repayment, and admitted receipt of the amounts as well as issuance of cheques and receipt of the legal notice. The defence based on a share purchase agreement and alleged investment arrangement was found unsupported by proof, and the agreement was found not to have been acted upon. On the admitted facts, the existence of liability and the ingredients of cheque dishonour were established.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the order enhancing the sentence called for interference.

Analysis: The revisionist had admitted liability at the initial stage and had repeatedly delayed the proceedings. In these circumstances, the appellate court's view that enhancement of sentence was justified was found to be supported by the record, and no exceptional circumstance was shown to reduce or disturb the enhanced punishment.

Conclusion: The enhancement of sentence was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Final Conclusion: Both revision petitions failed, and the conviction as well as the enhanced sentence remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where issuance of cheques, receipt of funds, service of demand notice, and admission of liability are established, a bare alternative defence unsubstantiated by evidence does not displace liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; appellate or revisional interference with sentence is unwarranted absent exceptional circumstances.

---