Section 138 limitation and presumption of debt sustained where cause of action day was excluded and defence failed to rebut evidence.

In a Section 138 prosecution, limitation was computed by excluding the day on which the cause of action arose, and the complaint was found to be within time. The cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, notice, and non-payment were proved from the record, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted. The accused failed to produce credible defence evidence sufficient to displace the presumption of legally enforceable debt, and the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation on the facts of the case; (ii) Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was barred by limitation on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The period for filing the complaint had to be computed by excluding the date on which the cause of action arose. Applying the settled rule for computation of time, the first day is excluded and the last day included. On the dates found on record, the complaint was within the statutory time and the objection of limitation was not sustainable.

Conclusion: The limitation objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability and the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The cheque, its presentation within the permissible period, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, issuance and service of notice, and non-payment within the prescribed time were all established from the evidence and documents. The accused did not dislodge the statutory presumption and the defence version did not create a doubt sufficient to overturn the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The cheque was held to have been issued towards a legally recoverable liability and the presumption remained unrebutted.

Final Conclusion: No infirmity was found in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the day on which the cause of action arises is excluded while computing limitation, and once the foundational facts of cheque issuance, dishonour, notice, and non-payment are proved, the statutory presumption as to debt continues unless rebutted by credible defence evidence.

---