Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where statutory notice was treated as served and presumptions remained unrebutted.

A conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because statutory notice was treated as duly served when sent to the correct address and the postal endorsement showed intimation had been left, bringing service within the General Clauses Act. The complainant's witness was found competent because he acted under a power of attorney and was also the manager familiar with the transactions, so his evidence was admissible and reliable. The accused admitted issuance of the cheque but failed to give a satisfactory explanation under Section 313 CrPC, leaving the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 unrebutted. The HC held that revision could not be used to reappreciate concurrent findings absent jurisdictional error, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be interfered with in revision on the grounds of alleged non-service of statutory notice, lack of authority of the complainant's witness, and failure to rebut the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The statutory notice was sent to the correct address and the postal endorsement showed that intimation had been left, so service was treated as complete under the General Clauses Act. The complainant's witness had been appointed under a power of attorney and, in any event, was the manager conversant with the underlying transactions, so his evidence was admissible and reliable. The accused did not dispute issuance of the cheque and offered no satisfactory explanation under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, and the revisional court would not reappreciate concurrent findings absent jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld and the revision was dismissed.

---