Court upholds dishonored cheque conviction, rejects defense against presumption. Accused faces fine, compensation, possible imprisonment.

The High Court upheld the judgments of the Trial Court and Sessions Judge's Court, finding no illegality or perversity. It confirmed the validity of the dishonored cheque issued by the accused, service of legal notice, and rejected the accused's defense against the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The alleged alteration on the cheque was deemed immaterial, and the fine imposed on the accused was reduced. The accused was directed to pay compensation to the complainant and face a default sentence of six months' imprisonment if the fine is not paid.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal, and erroneous, warranting interference by the High Court.
2. Validity of the cheque issued by the accused and its dishonor due to insufficient funds.
3. Service of legal notice to the accused and its implications.
4. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused.
5. Alleged material alteration of the cheque and its impact on the validity of the cheque.
6. Proportionality of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the judgments under revision are perverse, illegal, and erroneous, warranting interference by the High Court:
The High Court examined whether the judgments of the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court were perverse, illegal, or erroneous. The Court found that both lower courts had properly analyzed the evidence and arrived at a correct finding, thus there was no illegality, perversity, or impropriety in their judgments warranting interference.

2. Validity of the cheque issued by the accused and its dishonor due to insufficient funds:
It was undisputed that the accused issued a cheque to the complainant, which was dishonored due to "funds insufficient." The accused admitted to issuing the cheque under an agreement dated 15-10-2010. The evidence showed that the accused failed to comply with the terms of the agreement, and the cheque was issued as a result of this failure. Therefore, the issuance of the cheque remained an undisputed fact.

3. Service of legal notice to the accused and its implications:
The complainant issued a legal notice to the accused demanding payment of the cheque amount. The notice was sent through Registered Post Acknowledgment Due (RPAD) and was duly received by the accused, as evidenced by the postal acknowledgment card. The accused's contention that the notice was not served was rejected by the Court.

4. Rebuttal of presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the accused:
The accused contended that the cheque was given as security and that no consideration was passed. However, the accused's own admission that he received Rs. 16.00 lakhs from the complainant and entered into an agreement with him rebutted his defense. The Court found that the accused failed to rebut the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act.

5. Alleged material alteration of the cheque and its impact on the validity of the cheque:
The accused argued that the cheque was materially altered, specifically the year on the cheque was changed from "200_" to "2003." The Court referred to various judgments which held that such alterations do not constitute material alterations unless they change the rights, liabilities, or legal position of the parties. The Court found that the alteration was necessary to reflect the correct year of issuance and did not invalidate the cheque. The banker did not consider the alteration as material, and the cheque was dishonored solely due to insufficient funds.

6. Proportionality of the sentence imposed by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court:
The Trial Court sentenced the accused to pay a fine of Rs. 17,05,000/- and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. The High Court found the fine amount to be on the higher side considering the circumstances, including the accused's occupation as a coolie. The fine was reduced to Rs. 16,40,000/-, with Rs. 16,35,000/- to be paid as compensation to the complainant and Rs. 5,000/- to be forfeited to the State. The default sentence of six months simple imprisonment remained unaltered.

Order:
1. The Criminal Revision Petition is allowed-in-part.
2. The judgment of conviction by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Sessions Judge's Court is upheld.
3. The fine amount is reduced to Rs. 16,40,000/-, with Rs. 16,35,000/- payable as compensation to the complainant.
4. The default sentence of six months simple imprisonment remains unaltered.
5. The Registry is directed to transmit a copy of this order to both the Trial Court and the Sessions Judge's Court along with their respective records immediately.

---