Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where signature, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved; theft defence failed.

The High Court upheld conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act because the cheque signed by the accused was proved to have been issued to the complainant, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and followed by valid service of statutory notice without payment. The defence of theft and misuse was rejected since no police complaint or other contemporaneous action was shown, and the complainant's evidence was found consistent with the pleadings. The cited precedent was held inapplicable on the facts, and no interference was warranted in revisional jurisdiction with the conviction or the modified sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction of the petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the sentence as modified in appeal required interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The cheque bearing the petitioner's signature was proved to have been issued in favour of the complainant and was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. The statutory notice was also proved to have been served, and the petitioner failed to make payment thereafter. The defence that the cheque had been stolen and misused was rejected because no police complaint or other contemporaneous action was shown. The evidence of the complainant was found consistent with the pleadings, and the reliance on the cited precedent was held to be inapplicable on the facts.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld, and no interference was warranted with the modified sentence.

---