Revision cannot reappreciate evidence; cheque dishonour presumption stands unless rebutted by credible material.

High Court revision under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC cannot be used to reappreciate evidence and overturn concurrent findings unless they are perverse, wholly unreasonable, unsupported by material, or cause miscarriage of justice. In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once execution of the cheque and signature are proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arises in favour of the complainant. A bare denial or unsupported plea is insufficient to rebut that presumption; the accused must bring probable and credible material showing non-existence of debt or liability. On those principles, the conviction under Section 138 was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could set aside concurrent findings of conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act by reappreciating evidence; (ii) whether the statutory presumption regarding issuance of the cheque towards a debt or liability stood rebutted.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, could set aside concurrent findings of conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act by reappreciating evidence.

Analysis: Revisional power under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. Interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, wholly unreasonable, based on no material, or result in miscarriage of justice. The High Court did not identify any such jurisdictional error or perversity in the concurrent findings of the courts below and instead substituted its own view on appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in interfering with the conviction in revision.

Issue (ii): whether the statutory presumption regarding issuance of the cheque towards a debt or liability stood rebutted.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque and the accused's signature were proved, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant. The accused led no evidence, did not enter the witness box, and failed to bring on record facts or circumstances showing that the debt or liability did not exist or was so improbable that a prudent person would reject it. A bare denial or unsupported plea was insufficient to displace the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 139 was not rebutted and the conviction was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was restored, and the complainant's challenge succeeded because the High Court exceeded the limits of revisional jurisdiction and wrongly disturbed the concurrent factual findings.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, a High Court cannot reappreciate evidence and upset concurrent findings of conviction unless they are perverse or otherwise suffer from a jurisdictional or legal error; in a cheque dishonour case, once execution is proved, the rebuttable presumption under Section 139 operates and can be displaced only by probable and credible material, not by a bare denial.

---