1. In cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the onus on the complainant at the threshold is limited to establishing the cheque and negotiation. The complainant is not obligated to prove financial wherewithal or bank account details unless the accused specifically objects to their capacity to front the amount.
2. Contrary to settled law, a bare denial made in a statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. is not substantive evidence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumption of consideration under Section 139 NI Act. To successfully rebut this presumption, the accused must lead defence evidence, such as examining witnesses or producing documents that substantiate an explanation like payment or other discharge of liability.
3. Crucially, the Court affirmed that a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. is legal, enforceable, and constitutes a valid 'mode of enforcement'. This position relies on precedents like Hari Singh v. Sukhbir Singh and R. Mohan Kumar v. A.K. Vijaya Kumar. The purpose of Section 357(3) is to accord immediate relief to victims, and without the threat of a default sentence, the order lacks the necessary deterrence to ensure compliance. Thus, courts must look at the accused's capacity when passing such orders, but cannot opt for no sentence or merely another fine instead of default imprisonment.
4. The jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 397 Cr.P.C. is supervisory. It cannot act as an appellate court to reappreciate evidence unless the finding is perverse, erroneous on law, or based on no evidence. Concurrent findings of fact by trial and appellate courts regarding the non-rebuttal of the presumption justify dismissing the revision.
