Section 138 cheque dishonour presumptions upheld; unproved security-cheque defence failed and compensation was sustained.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, proof of cheque issuance, signature, dishonour, and statutory notice attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and the accused's unproved claim that the cheque was issued only as security did not rebut them. The concurrent finding of guilt was therefore not shown to suffer from perversity or legal infirmity, and no revision interference was warranted. On sentence, the compensation and fine were treated as just and proper in light of the unpaid cheque amount and lapse of time, with no basis to regard the quantum as excessive.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision. (ii) Whether the sentence and compensation imposed were excessive.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The issuance of the cheque and the signature of the accused stood proved. The underlying business transaction and the outstanding liability were supported by the account statement, and the cheque was dishonoured after presentation. Statutory notice was issued and remained uncomplied with, satisfying the ingredients of the offence. The accused's defence that the cheque was issued only as security was not proved, and the presumption arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted. The concurrent findings of the courts below were therefore not shown to suffer from perversity or legal infirmity.

Conclusion: The finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence and compensation imposed were excessive.

Analysis: The cheque amount was Rs. 1,50,000/- and the compensation/fine fixed at Rs. 1,60,000/- was considered appropriate in view of the lapse of time and the non-payment of the cheque amount. No basis was found to treat the quantum as excessive.

Conclusion: The sentence and compensation were held to be just and proper.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent conviction and compensation order were sustained, and the revision petition failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, where cheque issuance, dishonour, and statutory notice are proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate unless rebutted by credible defence evidence; a mere plea that the cheque was issued as security is insufficient without proof.

---