Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where statutory presumption of liability remained unrebutted and notice requirements were satisfied.

In a cheque dishonour matter under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the court held that the statutory presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted because the accused led no evidence to displace the claim of legally enforceable liability. The record showed issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of demand notice, and failure to pay within the prescribed time. On that basis, the conviction was found free from illegality or impropriety, and the sentence of simple imprisonment with compensation within the statutory range was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence of imprisonment with compensation were sustainable.

Analysis: The accused did not adduce any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt. The cheque and supporting evidence established issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of demand notice, and failure to make payment within the prescribed time. On this material, the conviction recorded by the trial court and affirmed in appeal disclosed no illegality or impropriety. The sentence of three months' simple imprisonment and compensation equivalent to twice the cheque amount was also found to be within the statutory range.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 and the sentence imposed were upheld; the revision was without merit.

Final Conclusion: The impugned criminal appellate order and the trial court's conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, resulting in dismissal of the revision petition.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the complainant proves issuance and dishonour of the cheque and service of demand notice, the presumption of a legally enforceable liability stands unless rebutted by the accused.

---