Cheque dishonour presumptions upheld in revision; concurrent conviction and sentence sustained absent perversity or credible rebuttal.

In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act are not interfered with unless they are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. Cheque issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and deemed service of notice were proved, while the defence that the cheque was a blank security cheque issued for a third-party transaction was unsupported and treated as an afterthought; the statutory presumption remained unrebutted, so conviction was upheld. The sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation was also sustained because the remedy is compensatory as well as deterrent, and the award was found proportionate to the default period, cheque amount, and loss suffered.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision; (ii) Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation awarded to the accused required reduction or interference.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revision was examined on the settled principle that revisional jurisdiction is narrow and does not permit reappreciation of evidence unless the findings are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence. The cheque issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and deemed service of notice were proved. The accused's version that the cheque was only a blank security cheque for a transaction with a third party was found to be an afterthought and unsupported by evidence. The presumption attached to the cheque was not rebutted, and the plea regarding difference in signatures did not displace liability when the dishonour was in fact for insufficient funds.

Conclusion: The concurrent finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and no revisional interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of simple imprisonment and compensation awarded to the accused required reduction or interference.

Analysis: The sentence was tested against the deterrent object of Section 138 proceedings and the compensatory character of the remedy. The period of default, the cheque amount, and the loss suffered by the complainant justified the compensation awarded. The sentence of simple imprisonment for one year was not found excessive, and the compensation was held to be within permissible limits.

Conclusion: The sentence of simple imprisonment and the compensation award were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed in its entirety, and the conviction as well as the sentence imposed by the courts below remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings of guilt will not be interfered with unless they are perverse, illegal, or based on no evidence, and the statutory presumptions under cheque dishonour law remain operative unless rebutted by credible evidence.

---