Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act require cogent rebuttal; sentence may be tailored on mitigating circumstances.

Where execution of a cheque is proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the complainant, and the accused must rebut them with probable and cogent evidence showing absence of debt or liability. The text further notes that dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and non-payment within time satisfied the ingredients of Section 138, and that concurrent findings were not disturbed in revision absent perversity. It also records that the sentence was modified on account of the accused's age and surrounding circumstances, with imprisonment replaced by a fine, default imprisonment, and compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption and escaped liability for dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption and escaped liability for dishonour of the cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque was proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused did not adduce cogent evidence to displace the presumption or to show absence of debt or liability. The evidence also established dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, and non-payment within the statutory period. The revisional court found no perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustained against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: The offence is punishable with imprisonment or fine or both. Considering the age of the accused and the circumstances noted in the judgment, compulsory imprisonment was found unnecessary and the sentence was tailored to a fine with default imprisonment, along with compensation to the complainant.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by substituting imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,50,000 and default simple imprisonment of six months, with compensation payable to the complainant.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of sentence modification, while the finding of guilt for dishonour of cheque remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for dishonour of cheque, once execution is proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arise and can be displaced only by a probable and cogent defence; in revision, concurrent findings on such matters are not disturbed absent perversity.

---