Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted where admitted cheque signatures and supporting evidence proved dishonour.

Admission of signatures on a cheque attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused failed to rebut it by defence evidence. The complainant's oral and documentary evidence, including the cheque, promissory note, return memos and notice, supported the dishonour claim, while the plea that the cheque had been issued to a third person remained unproved. In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings were not to be reappreciated absent illegality, infirmity or impropriety. No ground for revisional interference was made out, and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 suffered from any illegality, infirmity or impropriety warranting interference in revision, and whether the presumption arising from the admitted signatures on the cheque stood rebutted.

Analysis: The cheque dishonour case was supported by the complainant's oral and documentary evidence, including the cheque, promissory note, return memos and notice. The accused admitted his signatures on the cheque but failed to adduce any defence evidence to establish the plea that the cheque had been issued to a third person. In these circumstances, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the plea of absence of liability remained unproved. The revisional court also noted that it could not reappreciate evidence in the face of concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference was made out, and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld.

---