Conviction upheld under Section 138 - cheques for existing liability, not loan security. Statutory presumption applied.

The court upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, ruling that the cheques were issued to discharge an existing liability, not as security for a loan. The application of statutory presumption and legal precedents favored this interpretation, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition challenging the judgment.

---

---

Issues:
1. Challenge to the legality of the judgment dated 23.11.2015 in Criminal Appeal No. 03 of 2015 under Section 397(1) read with Section 401 of the Cr.P.C.
2. Interpretation of the purpose of cheques issued by the accused as security or for discharging the liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
3. Examination of evidence regarding the issuance of cheques for securing a loan and the legal implications under the N.I. Act.
4. Application of statutory presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act in cases of dishonored cheques.

Analysis:

1. The petitioner challenged the judgment convicting him under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonoring cheques issued to secure a loan. The appeal was dismissed based on the interpretation that the cheques were not issued as security but to discharge an existing liability, leading to the conviction.

2. The complainant's claim was that the accused handed over cheques as security for a loan taken earlier, while the court found that the cheques were issued to discharge the debt. The petitioner argued that the cheques were for securing the loan, not for liability discharge, citing legal precedents supporting such interpretations.

3. The evidence presented by the complainant regarding the purpose of the cheques was crucial. The court noted that the cheques were issued after the loan was taken, indicating a debt repayment intention rather than mere security. The complainant's testimony supported the view that the cheques were meant for debt discharge.

4. The application of statutory presumption under Section 139 read with Section 118 of the N.I. Act was pivotal. The court emphasized that the burden of proof shifts to the accused once the cheques are admitted, and the presumption is in favor of the cheques being issued for discharging a debt. The accused failed to rebut this presumption, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

In conclusion, the judgment upheld the conviction under Section 138 of the N.I. Act based on the interpretation of the purpose of the cheques as being for debt repayment rather than security. The application of statutory presumption and legal precedents supported the decision, leading to the dismissal of the revision petition.

---