Cheque dishonour presumptions upheld, notice proved, and alleged alteration rejected, but sentence reduced for proportionality.

A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained because cheque issuance and dishonour were admitted, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, service of notice was proved through postal records and admitted address, and the alleged filling of date and correction of year did not amount to a material alteration absent proof of fraud or prejudice. At the same time, the sentence was modified on proportionality grounds: the fine and compensation were reduced, with compensation recalibrated to the reduced fine, while the default sentence remained unchanged. The finding of guilt was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision on the ground that the cheque was unsupported by consideration, the notice was not served, and the cheque suffered from material alteration; (ii) Whether the fine and compensation imposed were excessive and required reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision on the ground that the cheque was unsupported by consideration, the notice was not served, and the cheque suffered from material alteration.

Analysis: The cheque issuance and dishonour were not in dispute. The accused failed to displace the statutory presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, because the defence of absence of consideration was not established and the admitted surrounding facts supported the complainant's version. Service of notice was proved by the postal records and admission of address, and the defence of non-service was rejected. On the alleged alteration in the cheque, the Court held that filling in the date and correcting the year, in the facts proved, did not amount to a material alteration invalidating the instrument, particularly when there was implied consent and no credible proof of prejudice or fraud.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no interference was warranted on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the fine and compensation imposed were excessive and required reduction.

Analysis: The Court found that the sentence had to reflect proportionality to the proved guilt. Although the conviction was sustained, the fine imposed by the trial court, as affirmed in appeal, was considered higher than necessary in the circumstances. The compensation component under Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was therefore required to be recalibrated to match the modified fine while leaving the default sentence intact.

Conclusion: The fine and compensation were reduced, while the default sentence of simple imprisonment was maintained.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the limited extent of sentence modification, and the finding of guilt remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque issued in the context of an admitted transaction attracts the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a claimed alteration will not invalidate it unless the drawer proves a legally material alteration made without consent; even where conviction is sustained, the sentence must remain proportionate to the offence and circumstances.

---