Cheque dishonour presumption remained unrebutted, so revisional interference was refused and conviction stood.

Cheques dishonoured for insufficiency of funds attracted the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments law, and the accused's admission of issuance, together with failure to reply to the demand notice, left that presumption unrebutted. The complainant's financial capacity and source of funds were accepted on the evidence, while the defence did not establish a probable version on the preponderance of probabilities. As the concurrent findings were not displaced by the material on record, no revisional interference was warranted and the conviction and sentence remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under the Negotiable Instruments law called for interference in revision on the plea that the complainant lacked financial capacity and the presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: The accused admitted issuance of the cheque and did not reply to the demand notice. The cheque was returned unpaid for insufficiency of funds. On the evidence, the complainant's assertion regarding source of funds was accepted, and the defence failed to establish, either by direct evidence or by circumstances, a probable version to rebut the presumption attached to the cheque. The material on record did not displace the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below.

Conclusion: The plea of absence of financial capacity was not proved, the statutory presumption remained unrebutted, and no ground for revisional interference was made out.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A cheque dishonour conviction will not be interfered with in revision where the accused admits issuance of the cheque but fails to rebut the statutory presumption by proving a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

---