Cheque dishonour conviction sustained as statutory presumption remained unrebutted and compensation was not found excessive.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because the accused admitted the cheque signature, failed to offer a credible explanation for the cheque's custody, and did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139. The concurrent findings that issuance and execution of the cheque were proved were not shown to be perverse or unreasonable, so revisional interference was unwarranted. The modified sentence and compensation were also upheld because the reduced substantive imprisonment and compensation were not considered excessive in light of the cheque amount, the delay in payment, and the principle that compensation may include interest for dishonour.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision; (ii) Whether the compensation and sentence imposed were excessive and required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque was admitted, and there was no credible explanation as to how the cheque came into the complainant's custody. The complainant's evidence was found credible, and the concurrent findings of the courts below held that issuance and execution of the cheque were proved. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption arising under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. No perversity or unreasonableness was shown in the concurrent factual findings, and no material evidentiary aspect was ignored.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and no revisional interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the compensation and sentence imposed were excessive and required modification.

Analysis: The appellate court had already reduced the substantive imprisonment to imprisonment till the rising of the court and maintained compensation of Rs. 2.4 lakhs. The cheque amount was Rs. 1,97,900/-, and the compensation was treated as not disproportionate in view of the cheque amount, the long lapse of time, and the principle that compensation may include interest for delayed payment in cheque dishonour cases. The sentence was not found to be excessive.

Conclusion: The modified sentence and compensation were sustained and no further reduction was granted.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in full, and both the conviction and the sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings on issuance and execution of a cheque will not be interfered with absent perversity, and the accused must rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act to avoid conviction.

---