Cheque dishonour presumptions and rebuttal evidence govern interference where concurrent findings support notice and legally enforceable debt.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant establishes the foundational facts, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder and the burden shifts to the drawer to rebut them with credible evidence. Where the trial and appellate courts record concurrent findings on service of notice, the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and the cheque transaction, the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 absent perversity or legal error. On the facts noted, the defence version was not substantiated and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with; whether the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 stood rebutted; and whether service of notice and existence of a legally enforceable debt were established.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour, statutory notice, and existence of a loan transaction were concurrently found proved by the courts below on appreciation of evidence. The presumption under Sections 118(a) and 139 operated in favour of the holder, and the burden shifted to the drawer to rebut the same. The defence version that the cheques were issued to a third party was not substantiated by reliable evidence. The question of service of notice and the factual finding regarding the complainant's address were also treated as issues of fact, and the concurrent acceptance of the testimony of the postal witness was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld and no interference was warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the accused's conviction and fine-related relief in favour of the complainant stood confirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant establishes the foundational facts and the trial and appellate courts record concurrent findings on service of notice and the existence of debt, the Supreme Court will not interfere under Article 136 absent perversity or legal error, and the statutory presumptions may be displaced only by credible rebuttal evidence.

---