Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where admitted signatures, deemed notice service, and an unsubstantiated theft defence failed to rebut liability.

Admitted signatures on the cheque, coupled with an unrebutted presumption of service of the statutory demand notice, sustained liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The defence of theft was rejected because no prompt or credible complaint was made, and the explanation for possession of blank signed cheques was found unconvincing. On the evidence, the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts disclosed no perversity or illegality, so revisional interference was declined and the conviction with sentence was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence affirmed in appeal called for interference in revision on the grounds of alleged stolen cheques, non-receipt of legal notice, and absence of legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The parties were closely acquainted, supporting the complainant's version of a loan transaction. The petitioner admitted signatures on the cheque and failed to give a credible explanation for retaining blank signed cheques. The defence of theft was found unconvincing because no prompt or satisfactory complaint was made, rendering the plea an afterthought. The legal demand notice was sent by registered post and the acknowledgment card was received at the petitioner's address by his daughter; therefore the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 applied. The Trial Court and Appellate Court had properly appreciated the evidence, and no perversity or illegality was shown in the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: Interference in revision was not warranted; the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admitted signatures on the cheque, an unrebutted presumption of service of notice, and an unsubstantiated delayed defence of theft are sufficient to sustain conviction and justify refusal of revisional interference.

---