Cheque dishonour presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted, so conviction and sentence were sustained in revision.

Execution of the cheque was admitted, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused's defence that the cheque had been issued to a third party was found unsupported by contemporaneous complaint, notice, or other steps, and was inconsistent on material particulars; the complainant's financial capacity was also not disproved. Applying the preponderance of probability standard, the accused failed to rebut the presumption, and no perversity or illegality was found in the concurrent findings. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque was not disputed. The accused's defence that the cheque had been issued to a third person and was not supported by any contemporaneous steps, notice, or complaint, and the version was found inconsistent on material particulars. The complainant's capacity to advance money was also not disproved. In such circumstances, the statutory presumption attached to the cheque transaction operated, and the accused failed to rebut it on the standard of preponderance of probability. No perversity or illegality was found in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: When execution of the cheque is admitted and the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumption by probable defence, concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act need not be disturbed in revision absent perversity or illegality.

---