Cheque dishonour presumption was not rebutted, conviction stood, and sentence was modified to a fine.

Proof of execution of a cheque attracts the statutory presumption of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut that presumption by raising a probable defence. The defence of a hire purchase arrangement and a security cheque was held insufficient, as dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment remained unshaken; the conviction was therefore sustained. Taking account of the accused's advanced age, bedridden condition, and lack of property, the Court modified the sentence and substituted imprisonment with a fine and default sentence, with the amount directed to be paid to the complainant.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the cheque so as to displace liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act; (ii) Whether the sentence required modification in view of the circumstances noticed by the Court.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the cheque so as to displace liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was proved, the statutory presumption of consideration operated under the negotiable instruments law. The evidence showed dishonour for insufficiency of funds, timely notice, and non-payment thereafter. The defence based on an alleged hire purchase arrangement and security cheque was found insufficient to create a probable defence or to dislodge the presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the conviction was sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification in view of the circumstances noticed by the Court.

Analysis: The Court took note of the petitioner's advanced age, bedridden condition, and lack of property, but held that these circumstances did not justify acquittal. At the same time, the sentence was reworked into a fine with a default sentence and the amount was directed to be paid to the complainant.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified to a fine with default imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under the cheque dishonour provision was maintained, while the punishment was altered to a monetary sentence with consequential payment to the complainant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, proof of execution attracts the statutory presumption of liability, which can be displaced only by a probable defence; where such rebuttal fails, conviction stands, though the sentence may be modified on appropriate facts.

---