Cheque dishonour presumptions upheld where signature was admitted, notice presumed served, and revisional interference was unwarranted.

In cheque dishonour proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an admitted cheque signature attracts the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. Those presumptions stand unless the accused raises a probable defence; here, no rebuttal evidence was produced, so guilt was sustained. Service of notice was also treated as established through the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. Concurrent findings were not interfered with in revision absent perversity, and the custodial sentence was modified to a compensation-oriented monetary direction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable on the basis of the admitted signature on the cheque, the statutory presumptions, and the service of notice; and whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings while modifying the sentence to compensation.

Analysis: The cheque signature was not disputed, attracting the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused did not adduce any probable defence or rebuttal evidence to displace those presumptions. Service of notice was treated as established by application of the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act. The courts below had recorded concurrent findings of guilt, and in revisional jurisdiction interference with such findings was not warranted in the absence of perversity. The compensatory character of proceedings under Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 justified substitution of the custodial sentence with a monetary condition directed towards compensation.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and the revision was dismissed, while the custodial sentence was modified by directing payment of compensation through the stipulated demand draft amount.

Final Conclusion: The accused's challenge failed on merits, but the sentence was tailored to secure compensation to the complainant in lieu of immediate imprisonment, with imprisonment remaining operative only upon non-compliance with the monetary direction.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate unless rebutted by probable defence, and a revisional court will not disturb concurrent findings absent perversity; the court may prefer a compensatory sentence in keeping with the object of the Act.

---