Cheque dishonour conviction upheld, but fine reduced on proportionality grounds after limited sentencing review.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the evidence established issuance and dishonour of the cheque and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption. Limited interference was warranted only on sentence, as the fine was found disproportionate and close to twice the cheque amount. Applying proportionality, the High Court reduced the fine and made consequential adjustments to the payment and compensation directions while leaving the finding of guilt intact.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference, and whether the sentence of fine warranted reduction.

Analysis: The revision challenged only the quantum of sentence and not the finding of guilt. The evidence accepted by the courts below established issuance and dishonour of the cheque and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption in favour of the complainant. At the same time, the amount of fine imposed was found to be very close to twice the cheque amount and therefore excessive in the facts of the case. The sentence was examined on the touchstone of proportionality, and limited interference was held necessary only on the aspect of punishment.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was affirmed, but the fine was reduced from Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 1,20,000/- with consequential modification in the payment and compensation directions.

---