Section 138 cheque dishonour conviction sustained where statutory notice was unclaimed and the presumption remained unrebutted.

Proof of the loan, issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and dispatch of the statutory notice to the drawer's correct address were treated as sufficient to invoke the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The notice returned as "unclaimed" was treated as valid service, and the accused led no evidence to rebut the complainant's case or establish the alleged alternative transaction and discharge. The discrepancy in describing the accused as a known person or friend was held immaterial. On these facts, the acquittal was set aside and guilt under Section 138 was found established.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in view of the proved dishonour of the cheque, the returned demand notice marked as unclaimed, and the presumption under Section 139.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and dispatch of the statutory notice to the drawer's known address. The return of the notice with the endorsement 'unclaimed' was treated as sufficient compliance with the notice requirement, and the presumption of service was applied on the basis that notice sent to the correct address is deemed served. The accused adduced no evidence to rebut the complainant's version or to prove the alleged alternative transaction and discharge. The discrepancy between describing the accused as a person known to the complainant and as a friend was held immaterial. The initial burden to prove the transaction and execution of the cheque was found to have been discharged, thereby attracting the statutory presumption, which remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the accused was found guilty under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

---