Dishonour of cheques for existing loan liability attracts Section 138, and separate dates may create distinct offences and sentences.

Cheques issued towards repayment of an existing, legally enforceable loan liability attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 because issuance, signature, timely presentation, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and non-payment were established, and the drawer failed to rebut the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139. The defence that the cheques formed only part of a settlement proposal was rejected. On sentencing, cheques dated differently were treated as giving rise to separate causes of action and distinct offences, so the direction that substantive sentences run consecutively was not interfered with; concurrent running was not directed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether cheques issued against an existing loan liability and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether the substantive sentences in the three complaint cases were liable to be directed to run concurrently.

Issue (i): Whether cheques issued against an existing loan liability and dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The complaint evidence showed issuance of the cheques, presentation within validity, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, issuance of statutory demand notices, and failure to pay within the prescribed period. The liability arose from an outstanding OCC/OD limit already availed by the drawer, and the Court treated the cheques as having been issued towards repayment of an existing and legally enforceable debt. The defence that the cheques were issued only as part of a settlement proposal was found unconvincing. The statutory presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 operated once issuance and signature were admitted, and the drawer did not rebut it.

Conclusion: The dishonoured cheques fell within Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the conviction was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the substantive sentences in the three complaint cases were liable to be directed to run concurrently.

Analysis: The cheques were of different dates and gave rise to separate causes of action. The Court treated each dishonour as a distinct offence notwithstanding the common loan transaction. In that setting, the direction that the substantive sentences run consecutively was not interfered with. The Court also noted that the rule regarding concurrent running of sentences under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is discretionary and does not extend to default sentences as a matter of right.

Conclusion: The request for concurrent running of the substantive sentences was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The revision petitions failed on merits, and the convictions as well as the sentence structure imposed by the courts below were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued towards repayment of an existing, legally enforceable loan liability attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when dishonoured after due notice and non-payment, and multiple dishonoured cheques on different dates may constitute separate offences with separate causes of action.

---