Cheque dishonour presumptions and deemed service of notice sustain conviction absent a probable defence.

In a Section 138 cheque dishonour matter, the court examined whether conviction was affected by alleged non-compliance with Section 313 CrPC and claimed non-service of statutory notice. It noted that dishonour for insufficiency of funds, dispatch of notice to the correct address, and the accused's failure to dispute the cheque or signature supported the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court also treated the incriminating circumstances as adequately put under Section 313 CrPC and regarded dispatch to the known address, with return showing the addressee was out of station, as sufficient for deemed service.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for alleged non-service of statutory notice; (ii) whether the sentence required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was vitiated for non-compliance with Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and for alleged non-service of statutory notice.

Analysis: The cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and the issuance of notice to the accused's correct address were established by the evidence. The accused did not dispute the cheque or signature in cross-examination and offered no probable defence to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court also found that the incriminating circumstances were sufficiently put to the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. On the question of notice, dispatch to the known address and return with the endorsement that the addressee was out of station supported deemed service.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and the challenge on the grounds of Section 313 compliance and non-service of notice was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: The Court found no reason to interfere with the finding of guilt, but considered the sentence fit for reduction while maintaining the monetary liability and default consequence.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by reducing it to a fine of Rs. 4,50,000 with default simple imprisonment for six months.

Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent of sentence modification, while the conviction remained undisturbed and the matter stood finally disposed of.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, dispatch of statutory notice to the correct address can satisfy the requirement of notice where the accused fails to rebut service, and conviction can be sustained on the basis of statutory presumptions unless the accused raises a probable defence.

---