Presumption of liability in cheque dishonour cases remains intact absent credible rebuttal, and revision is limited to gross illegality.

Admission of the signature on the cheque, receipt of statutory notice without reply, and lack of acceptable evidence for the claim that a blank cheque issued in an earlier transaction was misused meant the presumption of liability under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained unrebutted. The closure of the account by itself did not defeat that presumption, and a revisional court would interfere only for gross illegality or perversity. Minor discrepancies in the complainant's evidence and a civil deposition relied on by the accused were insufficient to displace the conviction under Section 138, which was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with in revision on the plea that the cheque was a blank cheque given in an earlier transaction and that the account had been closed before the cheque date.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque was admitted, and the statutory notice was received without response. The defence version that the cheque had been issued long earlier to a third person and later misused was raised only at trial and was not supported by acceptable evidence. The account closure by itself did not displace the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court also held that a revisional court interferes only where there is gross illegality or perversity, and minor discrepancies in the complainant's evidence did not justify interference. The civil deposition relied on by the accused had no evidentiary value against the complainant in the criminal proceeding.

Conclusion: The presumption of liability was not rebutted, and the conviction under Section 138 was sustained.

---