Presumption under cheque dishonour law sustained conviction where the accused failed to rebut the holder's case.

Presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the cheque holder where the accused failed to raise a probable defence. The admitted sale agreement, issuance of cheques towards refund of advance, dishonour of the cheques, statutory demand, and the reply seeking time to pay supported the complainant's case. The concurrent findings were neither perverse nor illegal, so the conviction under Section 138 was sustained and no interference in revision was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The admitted sale agreement and the issuance of cheques towards refund of the advance payment were relied upon by the complainant. The cheques were dishonoured, statutory demand was made, and the reply showed a request for time to pay, supporting the complainant's case. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumption under Section 139 operates in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the accused failed to rebut that presumption by a probable defence. The evidence of the complainant and the documents produced did not reveal perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no interference was warranted.

---