Presumption in cheque dishonour cases upheld where admitted signatures and cheque issuance were not rebutted by a probable defence.

Once issuance of the cheques and signatures were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the cheque holder, and the burden shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The claim that the cheques were only security cheques was not supported by cogent material, while the complainant's evidence, dishonour memos and legal notice supported liability and dishonour for insufficiency of funds. In revision under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, no legal error, perversity or miscarriage of justice was shown in the concurrent findings, so interference was declined.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption by showing that the cheques were issued only as security and not towards a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: Once issuance of the cheques and signatures were admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The burden then shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheques were security cheques was not probabilised by any cogent material, and the evidence on record, including the complainant's testimony, cheque dishonour memos, and legal notice, supported the existence of liability and dishonour for insufficiency of funds. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interference was not warranted in the absence of any legal error, perversity, or miscarriage of justice in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption or dislodge the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence; interference in revision was declined.

---