Cheque dishonour presumptions under the NI Act upheld, with revision limited and sentence moderated.

Admission of the cheque and signature attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused failed to rebut them with a probable defence on the balance of probabilities. The revisional court reiterated that interference under Sections 397 to 401 CrPC is confined to correcting patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, so the concurrent conviction for cheque dishonour was not disturbed. The sentence was, however, modified on the compensatory approach to Section 138: imprisonment was reduced to one day till rising of court and compensation was increased, with default imprisonment preserved.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent findings convicting the revision petitioner for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision. (ii) Whether the substantive sentence imposed by the courts below required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent findings convicting the revision petitioner for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revisional power under Sections 397 to 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited to correcting patent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and does not permit substitution of a possible view merely because another view is available. The cheque and signature were admitted, so the presumptions under Section 118(a) and Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The defence based on the alleged agreement was concurrently disbelieved by the courts below, and the accused failed to establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the substantive sentence imposed by the courts below required modification.

Analysis: While affirming the conviction, the Court treated the penal consequence under Section 138 as warranting a minimal custodial component with compensation, having regard to the compensatory character of the provision. The sentence of simple imprisonment was therefore reduced, and compensation was enhanced to reflect the liability found proved.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by reducing imprisonment to one day till the rising of the court and increasing compensation to Rs.3,00,000/- with default imprisonment of six months.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of sentence modification, while the conviction for dishonour of cheque was confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of the cheque and signature attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and in revision the concurrent finding of guilt will not be disturbed unless it is shown to be perverse or legally unsustainable; sentence may be moderated while preserving the conviction.

---