Section 482 CrPC review is limited; conviction under the cheque dishonour law was sustained as the statutory presumption remained unrebutted.

Section 482 CrPC offers only narrow inherent jurisdiction, exercisable to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice, and the Gauhati HC found no basis to disturb concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The complainant had proved the underlying liability, the cheques issued towards a legally enforceable debt, their dishonour on closure of account, and service of demand notice. The defence of loss of cheque leaves was rejected because the supporting FIR and bank intimation were not proved through the relevant witnesses and the explanation was inconsistent with admitted issuance from the same cheque set. The presumption under section 139 was held unrebutted, so no interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether interference under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was warranted with the concurrent conviction under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, including the findings on issuance of cheques towards legally enforceable debt, dishonour on account of closure of account, and rebuttal of the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The petition invoked inherent jurisdiction, which is confined to examining whether interference is necessary to secure the ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process. The record showed that the complainant proved the underlying liability, the agreement supporting the debt, the issuance of the six cheques, their dishonour, and service of demand notice. The defence based on alleged loss of cheque leaves and the FIR and bank intimation was not accepted, as the copies were not proved through the relevant official witnesses and the explanation was found inconsistent with the admitted issuance of one cheque from the same set. The Court also accepted the finding that dishonour for closure of account attracts the offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and held that the presumption under section 139 was not rebutted. No legal or factual error, inadmissible evidence, or abuse of process was demonstrated to justify interference with the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: No interference was called for under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the conviction and sentence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were sustained.

---