Cheque dishonour liability and statutory presumption sustain Section 138 conviction; limitation objection rejected on factual findings.

Where cheque issuance and dishonour were admitted, the court held that the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act with credible evidence. The defence that the cheques were only advance consultancy payments was rejected because the record, including the loan agreement, showed they were issued towards repayment of a loan liability, so conviction under Section 138 was justified. On limitation, the complaint was treated as in time because the appellate court accepted that prolonged cease work by the Bar explained the delay, and no basis was found to disturb that factual finding. The revisional challenge therefore failed and the concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability so as to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Issue (i): whether the cheques were issued in discharge of a legally enforceable liability so as to attract Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The issuance of the cheques and their dishonour were admitted. The defence that the cheques were issued only as advance payment for consultancy charges was not supported by cogent evidence. The materials on record, including the loan agreement, showed that the cheques were issued towards repayment of the loan liability. The statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted on the facts proved in the case.

Conclusion: The cheques were issued in discharge of liability and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was justified.

Issue (ii): whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Analysis: The appellate court had found that the complaint could not be filed within time because of prolonged cease work by the Bar and that the complaint was filed once the cease work ended. No reason was shown to disturb that finding.

Conclusion: The complaint was not held to be barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings of the courts below were left undisturbed and the revisional challenge failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of rebuttal by credible evidence, the statutory presumption supporting issuance of a cheque for consideration and liability sustains a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and concurrent factual findings will not be interfered with in revision absent perversity.

---