Cheque dishonour presumptions upheld in revision, but disproportionate imprisonment and default sentence were reduced.

Admission of issuance of the cheque, coupled with proof of dishonour and service of demand notice, sustained the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act; the accused did not rebut them by his Section 313 CrPC statement or by any defence evidence, so the conviction under Section 138 was upheld in revision. The court found no perversity or patent illegality in the concurrent findings. On sentence, the maximum custodial term and the default term were considered excessive and insufficiently reasoned, so the substantive imprisonment was reduced to six months and the default sentence to three months, while compensation was left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable in revision, including the operation of the presumptions arising from admitted issuance of cheque and the service of demand notice; (ii) Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment and the default sentence required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustainable in revision, including the operation of the presumptions arising from admitted issuance of cheque and the service of demand notice.

Analysis: The accused admitted issuance of the cheque and did not successfully rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was insufficient to displace the presumption, and no defence evidence was led to show absence of liability or payment. The dishonour memo showed insufficiency of funds, attracting the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Service of notice was also treated as proved by the acknowledgement and the statutory presumption under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. In revisional jurisdiction, no perversity or patent illegality was shown in the concurrent findings sustaining conviction.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of two years' imprisonment and the default sentence required interference.

Analysis: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act permits imprisonment up to two years, but the maximum sentence was imposed without adequate reasons. The default sentence of one year also exceeded the permissible limit linked to the substantive sentence. The compensation amount was not disturbed, but the custodial and default terms were found excessive.

Conclusion: The substantive sentence was reduced to six months and the default sentence was reduced to three months.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, but the punishment was moderated by reducing both the substantive custodial sentence and the default sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour case, admission of the cheque and signature activates the statutory presumptions in favour of the holder, and in revision the court will not reappreciate concurrent findings absent perversity; however, the sentence must still be proportionate and supported by reasons.

---