Appellate court upholds conviction for dishonoring cheque under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act.

The conviction and sentence of the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for dishonoring a cheque were upheld by the appellate court. The courts found the evidence presented by the complainant to be sufficient, including the presumption under Section 139 of the Act that a cheque is for the discharge of a debt unless proven otherwise. The High Court dismissed the revision filed by the applicant, emphasizing the limited scope of revisional powers and the absence of material irregularity or illegality in the lower court's order.

---

---

Issues:
The case involves a revision filed against a judgment convicting the applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, for dishonoring a cheque issued for payment of goods purchased.

Summary:

Issue 1 - Conviction and Sentence Upheld:
The respondent filed a complaint against the applicant for dishonoring a cheque issued for payment of goods purchased. The trial court convicted the applicant under Section 138 of the Act, which was upheld by the appellate court. The applicant challenged the judgments, claiming improper appreciation of facts and evidence. The defense argued that the complainant failed to establish the cheque was issued for a lawful debt and that the accused was suffering from a mental disease at the time of signing the cheque. However, the courts found the evidence sufficient to convict the applicant.

Issue 2 - Evidence and Presumptions:
The complainant presented evidence including the cheque, legal notice, and witness statements. The applicant admitted his signature on the cheque but failed to prove he was suffering from a mental disease at the time. The courts relied on Section 139 of the Act, which presumes that a cheque is for the discharge of a debt unless proven otherwise. Citing legal precedents, the courts emphasized that even a blank signed cheque attracts the presumption under the Act in the absence of evidence to the contrary.

Issue 3 - Limited Scope of Revisional Powers:
The High Court noted the limited scope of interference in revisional powers and the need to verify any material irregularity or illegality in the lower court's order. In this case, no such circumstances were found to warrant interference. Therefore, the criminal revision filed by the applicant was dismissed as lacking substance.

---