Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 upheld; revisional interference refused absent rebuttal evidence or perversity.

Admitted signature on a cheque triggered the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act that it was issued towards a legally enforceable liability; the accused failed to rebut that presumption with credible evidence, and the security-cheque and discharge defences remained unsupported. The complainant had proved the loan transaction, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of notice, and non-payment. In revision, the HC emphasised that concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts are not to be reappreciated unless illegality, impropriety, or perversity is shown. As no such infirmity was demonstrated, interference with the conviction and sentence under Section 138 was refused.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision in view of the admitted signature on the cheque, the statutory presumption under Section 139, and the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The complainant proved the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, service of legal notice, and non-payment. The accused admitted his signature and issuance of the cheque, but did not place material on record to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable liability. The plea that the cheque was a security cheque and that the liability had been discharged was not supported by evidence. In revision, the Court cannot reappreciate evidence as in an appeal, especially when both the trial court and appellate court have returned concurrent findings of fact. No illegality, impropriety, or infirmity in the concurrent findings was shown.

Conclusion: Interference with the conviction and sentence was not warranted; the revisional challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood affirmed on the basis of the statutory presumption and concurrent factual findings, and the revision was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be disturbed unless illegality, impropriety, or perversity is shown, and an admitted cheque signature activates the presumption of liability unless rebutted by credible evidence.

---