Cheque dishonour conviction sustained where misplaced-cheque defence lacked evidence and Section 313 explanations could not rebut liability.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the accused admitted business dealings and signature on the cheque, while the plea that the cheque had been misplaced was unsupported by cogent evidence. The absence of defence evidence and the failure to explain why no stop-payment instruction was issued weakened the defence. Statements made at the notice stage and under Section 313 CrPC were treated as no evidence in law and could not, by themselves, rebut the complainant's case. The challenge based on absence of legally recoverable debt and alleged defects in the pre-summoning material did not warrant interference, and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference was warranted with the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the grounds that the cheque was allegedly misplaced, no legally recoverable debt was proved, and the accused's explanations at the stage of notice and statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could displace the prosecution case.

Analysis: The record showed admission of business dealings and admission of signatures on the cheque, while the defence of loss of cheque remained unsupported by cogent evidence. No witness was examined in defence, and no explanation was offered for the absence of stop-payment instructions if the cheque had truly been misplaced. The explanations given at the stage of notice and under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 were not evidence in law and could not, by themselves, rebut the complainant's case. In these circumstances, the challenge based on absence of liability and alleged defects in the pre-summoning material did not justify interference.

Conclusion: The petition failed and the conviction and concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

---