Cheque dishonour conviction sustained, but sentence modified to align with the Negotiable Instruments Act punishment framework.

Cheque dishonour for insufficient funds, coupled with an admitted issuance of the cheque and an unrebutted statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, sustained the conviction under Section 138 because the mandatory requirements of the offence were satisfied. The sentence, however, was not in accordance with the statutory punishment scheme, as it was framed as compensation with default imprisonment. The sentence was modified by substituting compensation with fine.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act required interference, and whether the sentence directing payment of compensation with default imprisonment was in accordance with law.

Analysis: The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, the petitioner had admittedly issued the cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was not rebutted, and the mandatory requirements under Section 138 of that Act stood complied with. The conviction, therefore, did not warrant interference. However, the sentence imposed by the trial court and affirmed in appeal was not in accordance with law because the direction was framed as compensation with default imprisonment, whereas in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 the punishment must conform to the statutory scheme of imprisonment and fine.

Conclusion: The conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was modified by substituting the word "compensation" with the word "fine".

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the cheque dishonour and statutory presumptions are established and unrebutted, conviction may stand, but the sentence must remain within the statutory framework and cannot be sustained if it is framed contrary to the permissible punishment structure.

---