Cheque dishonour for a subsisting debt attracts Section 138, and separate causes of action may justify consecutive sentences.

Cheques issued towards repayment of an existing loan liability attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because dishonour, service of statutory notices, and failure to pay within the prescribed period satisfied the statutory ingredients; the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 was not rebutted, so the conviction was upheld. Where three cheques were drawn on different dates and gave rise to separate causes of action, the court treated concurrent sentencing under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as discretionary and sustained consecutive substantive sentences, including no requirement to make the default sentence on compensation concurrent.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheques issued towards repayment of the outstanding loan liability attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and justified the conviction; (ii) Whether the appellate court was bound to direct the substantive sentences in the three complaint cases to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

Issue (i): Whether the cheques issued towards repayment of the outstanding loan liability attracted Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and justified the conviction.

Analysis: The cheques were issued against an existing liability arising from the credit facility availed by the petitioner. Their issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory demand notices, and non-payment within the prescribed period satisfied the statutory ingredients. The defence that the cheques were merely towards settlement was rejected because the transaction involved a legally enforceable debt, and the presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not rebutted.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellate court was bound to direct the substantive sentences in the three complaint cases to run concurrently instead of consecutively.

Analysis: The three cheques were drawn on different dates and gave rise to separate causes of action. The power under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is discretionary, and the court found no basis to treat the three convictions as part of a single transaction for purposes of concurrent substantive sentencing. The default sentence attached to compensation was also not required to run concurrently with the substantive sentence.

Conclusion: The direction that the substantive sentences run consecutively was sustained.

Final Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the conviction or the sentence modified in appeal, and the revision petitions failed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued against a subsisting legally enforceable liability attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 when dishonour, notice, and non-payment are established, and where multiple cheques generate separate causes of action, consecutive substantive sentences may be sustained in the court's discretion under Section 427 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---