Cheque dishonour conviction sustained, but custodial sentence reduced as excessive in the facts of the case.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not interfered with because the revision was confined to sentence and the accused did not challenge the finding of guilt on merits. The Court then held that imprisonment remained warranted, but one year's simple imprisonment was excessive in the facts and disproportionate to the proven guilt; it reduced the custodial sentence to two months while maintaining the fine and modified default sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision. (ii) Whether the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment was liable to be reduced while maintaining the fine.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision.

Analysis: The revision was confined to the question of sentence. The accused did not dispute the finding of guilt recorded by the trial court and affirmed in appeal. In view of that limited challenge, no reconsideration of the conviction on merits was warranted.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not interfered with and stood confirmed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment was liable to be reduced while maintaining the fine.

Analysis: The sentence had to be assessed against the circumstances of the case, the earlier sentence originally imposed in the same matter, and the length of time for which the cheque amount had remained unpaid. The Court found that imprisonment was still warranted and that fine alone would not meet the ends of justice, but the sentence of one year's simple imprisonment was excessive in the facts of the case and disproportionate to the proven guilt.

Conclusion: The sentence of imprisonment was reduced to two months' simple imprisonment, while the fine of Rs. 21,000/- and the default sentence as modified were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of reducing the custodial sentence, while the conviction and fine were sustained.

---