Cheque dishonour complaint upheld where bank authority was proved and statutory presumptions under the NI Act remained unrebutted.

A bank-initiated complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the Branch Manager's authority to prosecute was supported by an unchallenged bank circular and concurrent findings showed no jurisdictional defect. The conviction was also sustained because the accused admitted the loan, the cheque was issued while the debt remained legally recoverable, and no repayment evidence rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. In revision, the court declined to reappreciate evidence or interfere with the proportionate sentence and compensation, finding no perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was vitiated for want of authority of the Bank official who instituted it. (ii) Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision on the ground that the legally recoverable liability was not proved and the sentence was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was vitiated for want of authority of the Bank official who instituted it.

Analysis: The record showed that the Branch Manager was authorised by the Bank to prosecute the complaint, and the supporting circular was already on record and remained unchallenged. The trial court had recorded a reasoned finding on authorisation, and the appellate court affirmed that finding. No patent illegality or jurisdictional defect was shown.

Conclusion: The complaint was validly instituted and the objection to authority failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision on the ground that the legally recoverable liability was not proved and the sentence was excessive.

Analysis: The accused admitted having taken the loan, and the cheque was issued within the period in which the debt remained legally recoverable. No evidence of repayment was produced to rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The revisional court was not to reappreciate evidence as if sitting in appeal, and no perversity or patent illegality was shown in the concurrent findings. The sentence and compensation were also held to be proportionate in the circumstances.

Conclusion: Interference with the conviction, compensation and sentence was not warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, and the concurrent conviction and sentence were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In criminal revision, concurrent findings based on evidence will not be disturbed absent patent illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error, and admission of the loan together with an unrebutted statutory presumption sustains liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---