Cheque dishonour prosecutions: unchallenged proof of demand notice and unrebutted statutory presumption can sustain conviction.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, a demand notice marked in evidence without objection was treated as duly proved, because an objection to the mode of proof must be raised when the document is tendered and the surrounding postal records supported service. The evidence also showed that the cheque was issued towards an existing liability, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds or arrangement, and that no payment was made after statutory notice or summons. The statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted, and the record was held sufficient to establish liability of the company and its directors.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the demand notice in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was proved and could be relied upon when the photocopy was admitted in evidence without objection; (ii) whether the ingredients of offences under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood established on the evidence.

Issue (i): whether the demand notice in a prosecution under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was proved and could be relied upon when the photocopy was admitted in evidence without objection

Analysis: The cheque had been dishonoured and notice demanding payment was issued by registered post with acknowledgment due. The notice copy was marked in evidence without objection. Applying the principle that objection to the mode of proof must be taken at the time of tendering evidence, the absence of objection to admission of the document was treated as fatal to the defence challenge. The court also noted that the original notice had been dispatched and served, and the surrounding evidence, including the postal acknowledgment cards, supported service.

Conclusion: The demand notice was properly proved and could be relied upon in evidence, and the contrary finding of the trial court was erroneous.

Issue (ii): whether the ingredients of offences under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood established on the evidence

Analysis: The cheque was issued towards an existing liability, dishonoured for insufficiency of arrangement, and the statutory notice was served, yet no payment was made within the prescribed period or after summons. The statutory presumption under section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted. On the entire record, the evidence was held sufficient to establish the offence beyond reasonable doubt against the company and its directors.

Conclusion: The offences under sections 138 and 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were proved against the accused persons.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside, the accused were convicted, and the appeal succeeded with imposition of fine and compensation.

Ratio Decidendi: A document admitted in evidence without objection cannot later be challenged for want of proper proof of its contents where the document itself is otherwise admissible, and in a cheque dishonour prosecution the statutory presumptions and proof of service of notice may sustain conviction if unrebutted.

---