Cheque dishonour presumption upheld, additional evidence refused, and sentence trimmed by deleting the State-expense component.

In a Section 138 prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque admittedly belonged to the accused, the dishonour was for insufficiency of funds, and the complainant's invoice, tax, delivery, and bank records were sufficient to raise the Section 139 presumption; as the accused failed to rebut it with defence evidence or effective cross-examination, the conviction was sustained. Additional evidence in appeal under Section 391 CrPC was refused because the material was largely subsequent, could have been produced at trial with due diligence, and was aimed at filling gaps rather than preventing failure of justice. The sentence was interfered with only to delete the component of State-expense compensation, while the remaining fine was maintained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused was liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the cheque, dishonour memos, notice, and the presumption under Section 139 of that Act. (ii) Whether additional evidence sought in appeal under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be allowed. (iii) Whether the sentence required interference to the limited extent of the amount imposed towards defraying expenses of the State.

Issue (i): Whether the accused was liable to be convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the basis of the cheque, dishonour memos, notice, and the presumption under Section 139 of that Act.

Analysis: The cheque admittedly belonged to the accused and the signature was not shown to be false. The cheque was dishonoured twice for insufficiency of funds. The complainant produced the invoice, tax documents, delivery-related material, and bank evidence, which was sufficient to raise the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused did not lead defence evidence or effectively rebut the presumption by cross-examination or by contemporaneous material showing absence of liability. The later material relied upon did not displace the finding that the cheque was issued towards payment for the trailers and that a legally enforceable debt existed.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and the challenge on merits failed.

Issue (ii): Whether additional evidence sought in appeal under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 should be allowed.

Analysis: The additional material was sought after conviction and was substantially subsequent in origin, except for one receipt. The accused had ample opportunity during trial to produce the material but did not show due diligence or any compelling reason for non-production earlier. The material was viewed as an attempt to fill in gaps in the defence rather than as evidence necessary to prevent failure of justice. The appellate court's refusal to admit it did not warrant interference.

Conclusion: The request for additional evidence was rightly rejected.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence required interference to the limited extent of the amount imposed towards defraying expenses of the State.

Analysis: The dispute was between private parties and no State machinery was involved. The component of Rs. 5,000/- awarded towards defraying expenses of the State was therefore unsustainable, while the compensation component could be maintained within the permissible limit.

Conclusion: The amount of Rs. 5,000/- towards State expenses was set aside and the fine was reduced accordingly.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was maintained, the attempt to introduce additional evidence failed, and only the sentence was modified to the limited extent of deleting the State-expense component and reducing the total fine to the cheque amount.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once the complainant proves issuance and dishonour of the cheque and the accused fails to rebut the presumption of liability, conviction can be sustained; additional evidence under Section 391 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is allowed only where due diligence is shown and its absence would cause failure of justice.

---