Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law remains unrebutted where the accused leads no defence evidence, while sentence may be moderated.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption in favour of the cheque holder was treated as unrebutted because the accused denied issuance of the cheque but led no defence evidence and did not enter the witness box; a Section 313 CrPC statement alone was not treated as evidence, so the conviction was sustained. Since the compensation amount and compounding fee had been deposited, the Court exercised sentencing discretion and reduced the substantive custodial sentence from 12 months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till rising of Court.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the accused denied issuance of the cheque but adduced no evidence and did not enter the witness box. (ii) Whether the sentence required modification in view of deposit of the compensation amount and compounding fee.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained when the accused denied issuance of the cheque but adduced no evidence and did not enter the witness box.

Analysis: The cheque was proved to have been issued, presented and returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice was also shown to have been served. Once the accused denied the transaction, the statutory presumption operating in favour of the holder of the cheque remained unrebutted because the accused did not step into the witness box and led no defence evidence. A statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, by itself, was not treated as evidence. In these circumstances, the challenge to the finding of guilt failed.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence required modification in view of deposit of the compensation amount and compounding fee.

Analysis: The record showed that the entire compensation amount and the compounding fee had been deposited. The compensation awarded by the trial court had not been separately challenged by the complainant, and the circumstances justified interference only with the substantive custodial sentence. The Court exercised sentencing discretion and considered the limited purpose of punishment in the facts of the case.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced from 12 months' simple imprisonment to imprisonment till rising of Court.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the custodial sentence was substantially reduced, leaving the revision only partially successful.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, an accused who merely denies issuance of the cheque but does not enter the witness box or lead evidence fails to rebut the statutory presumption, and the conviction can be sustained; where the compensation amount and compounding fee stand deposited, the substantive sentence may be moderated in the exercise of sentencing discretion.

---