Cheque dishonour conviction upheld where the debt, service of notice, and account-closed dishonour were supported by the evidence.

A conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained where the evidence showed that money had been advanced, a promissory note had been executed, and the cheque with the accused's signature and account details was issued towards part discharge of that debt. The accused's claim that the cheque was stolen, or that the account had been closed earlier, was rejected because no loss of cheque was reported to the bank or police and the bank evidence did not support that defence. Dishonour for "account closed" and postal records showing repeated delivery attempts supported compliance with statutory notice requirements, including service to the correct address. No ground for revisional interference was made out.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision on the grounds that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that statutory notice was not duly served.

Analysis: The evidence accepted by the courts below showed that the complainant advanced money, a promissory note was executed, and the cheque bearing the accused's signature and account particulars was issued towards part discharge of the debt. The defence that the cheque had been stolen or that the account had been closed earlier was not made probable, since the accused did not report any loss of cheque or intimate the bank or police, and the bank evidence did not support return of unused signed cheques. The dishonour for the reason "account closed" and the postal record showing repeated attempts at service supported compliance with the statutory requirements, including notice sent to the correct address.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld, and no ground for revisional interference was made out.

---