Key Points: - The judgment holds that non-sending of a reply to the statutory notice can give rise to a presumption of guilt under Section 138 NI Act. [6000056440007] - The court considered that no reply was sent by the accused, he did not rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 NI Act, and the cheque Ex.P2 was issued for discharging an existing liability. [6000056440007] - The cheque was dishonored for insufficient funds (Ex.P3), statutory notice issued (Ex.P4) with acknowledgment (Ex.P5), and the accused did not repay; thus, the presumption was proven and the accused found guilty under Section 138 NI Act. [6000056440002][6000056440008] - The connected sentences: two years' simple imprisonment and payment of Rs. 14,74,805 as compensation, with default six months’ imprisonment, affirmed. (!) - The Criminal Revision is dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence is confirmed; bail bonds canceled and steps to secure the remaining sentence are to be taken. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

What is the question of whether non-receipt of a reply to statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can give rise to a presumption of guilt?

What is the legal significance of Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in this case, and whether the accused rebutted the presumption?

What is the outcome of the revision petition regarding conviction, sentence, and the validity of relying on non-filing of dealership in this case?