Cheque dishonour liability upheld where debt presumption, registered-post notice, and account closure all failed as defences.

A cheque is presumed to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability under Section 139 when the drawer admits issuance and produces no rebuttal evidence; that presumption remained unrebutted here, so liability was established. Statutory notice of dishonour sent by registered post to the correct address and not returned carries a presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act; the challenge to notice therefore failed. Closure of the drawer's account after issuance of the cheque does not take the matter outside Section 138, so dishonour on that ground still attracts liability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted. (ii) Whether statutory notice of dishonour was duly served by registered post. (iii) Whether closure of the drawer's account prevented liability under Section 138.

Issue (i): Whether the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability and the presumption under Section 139 stood unrebutted.

Analysis: The drawer did not dispute issuance of the cheque and led no rebuttal evidence to displace the statutory presumption. The evidence accepted by the courts below showed that the cheque was issued towards repayment of money received for investment purposes. The presumption under Section 139 attached in favour of the holder of the cheque and remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The cheque was issued towards discharge of liability and the finding on this issue was against the petitioner.

Issue (ii): Whether statutory notice of dishonour was duly served by registered post.

Analysis: The notice was sent to the correct address by registered post and was not returned. In such circumstances, the presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act operated in favour of service, and the challenge to sufficiency of notice failed.

Conclusion: Statutory notice was held to be duly served and the finding was against the petitioner.

Issue (iii): Whether closure of the drawer's account prevented liability under Section 138.

Analysis: Closure of the account after issuance of the cheque did not take the case outside the penal provision. The cheque dishonour on that ground still attracted the object and ingredients of Section 138, and the drawer could not avoid liability by relying on his own act.

Conclusion: Closure of the account did not defeat prosecution under Section 138 and the finding was against the petitioner.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence, as modified in appeal, were upheld and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque is presumed to have been issued for discharge of a debt or liability under Section 139, service of notice may be presumed when sent by registered post to the correct address and not returned, and closure of the drawer's account does not exclude liability under Section 138.

---