Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 stands unless rebutted by probable defence; revisional interference was declined.

Once execution of the cheque is proved, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the complainant and can be rebutted only on a preponderance of probabilities. Here, the complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance and dishonour of the cheque for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice, while the accused led no supporting evidence and offered no credible explanation for the cheque's possession by the complainant. The Madras High Court held that bare suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient to displace the presumption and that revisional interference was unwarranted absent jurisdictional error. The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for cheque dishonour under Section 138 was liable to be interfered with in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the cheque.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and the statutory notice. The accused did not adduce any evidence to support the defence suggested in cross-examination and offered no explanation as to how the signed cheque came into the hands of the complainant or the alleged third party. In revision, the High Court would not act as a second appellate court while examining concurrent findings of fact unless a jurisdictional error was shown. The presumption under Section 139 could be rebutted only on a preponderance of probabilities, which was not done.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once execution of the cheque is established, the presumption under Section 139 operates and can be displaced only by a probable defence; bare suggestions without supporting material are insufficient, and revisional interference is unwarranted in the absence of jurisdictional error.

---