Statutory notice proof is essential in cheque dishonour cases; presumption under cheque law does not replace notice compliance.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act requires proof of every statutory ingredient: cheque drawal, timely presentation, dishonour, issue of a written demand notice within the prescribed period, and failure to pay after service of notice. The analysis notes that although dishonour of the cheques was shown, the legal notice was not exhibited and there was no evidence of its dispatch date or actual, or deemed, service; a postal receipt alone was insufficient. The Section 139 presumption in favour of the cheque holder did not cure the absence of proof of notice compliance. On that basis, the conviction was held unsustainable and was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the legal notice, its date of dispatch, and its service or deemed service were not proved on record.

Analysis: For an offence under Section 138, the cheque must be drawn, presented within the prescribed time, returned unpaid, a written demand notice must be issued within the statutory period after receipt of information of dishonour, and the drawer must fail to pay within the prescribed time after service of notice. The record showed proof of the cheques and their dishonour, but the legal notice was neither exhibited nor supported by evidence showing the date of dispatch or the date of service or deemed service. The postal receipt by itself did not establish that the statutory notice had been sent or served. Although a presumption arises in favour of the holder of the cheque under Section 139, that presumption does not dispense with proof of the other essential ingredients of Section 138. In the absence of proof of the statutory notice and the related timelines, the basic requirements for constituting the offence were not satisfied.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was unsustainable and was set aside, resulting in acquittal of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 cannot stand unless every statutory ingredient, including issuance and service of the demand notice within the prescribed time, is proved; the presumption regarding the cheque does not cure failure to prove the notice requirements.

---