Cheque dishonour presumptions and revisional limits on additional evidence upheld against a bare security-cheque defence.

In revisional jurisdiction, additional evidence is permitted only exceptionally where due diligence is shown or the material emerged later, and the revisional court cannot be used to fill gaps in the defence; the request for the customer account ledger was therefore rejected. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, admission of issuance and signatures on the cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and a bare plea of security cheque or absence of liability, without credible rebuttal evidence, was insufficient; the conviction was upheld. The sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation were also left undisturbed because they were not shown to be excessive or unreasonable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence could be permitted at the revisional stage on the basis of the customer account ledger report; (ii) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in view of the admitted cheque and the accused's plea of security cheque and absence of liability; (iii) Whether the sentence of imprisonment and compensation called for interference.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence could be permitted at the revisional stage on the basis of the customer account ledger report.

Analysis: The power to take additional evidence is exceptional and is to be exercised only where necessary to secure the ends of justice and where the party was prevented despite due diligence or the material came to light later. The accused had sufficient opportunity before the trial court, the document was available much earlier, and no satisfactory explanation was shown for not producing it earlier. The revisional court could not be used to fill gaps in the defence.

Conclusion: The prayer for additional evidence was rightly rejected and was against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable in view of the admitted cheque and the accused's plea of security cheque and absence of liability.

Analysis: Once issuance and signatures on the cheque were admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arose in favour of the holder. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption by a probable defence. Mere denial, a plea that the cheque was blank or issued as security, or the absence of defence evidence was insufficient. The cheque dishonour memo supported insufficiency of funds, notice was sent to the correct address, and the accused failed to pay despite deemed service. The record also showed no perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the challenge failed against the accused.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence of imprisonment and compensation called for interference.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 is deterrent as well as compensatory. The sentence of three months' simple imprisonment was not excessive in the facts, and the compensation awarded was not shown to be unreasonable, particularly in view of the lapse of time and the financial loss to the complainant.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the sentence or compensation, against the accused.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed in entirety, and the concurrent findings of guilt, sentence, and compensation were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings in a cheque dishonour case will not be disturbed absent perversity or jurisdictional error, and once execution of the cheque is admitted, the accused must rebut the statutory presumption of liability by credible defence evidence; a mere plea that the cheque was blank or issued as security does not suffice.

---