Cheque dishonour presumption and limited revisional review govern when concurrent conviction findings may be disturbed.

Revisional interference with concurrent convictions is confined to cases of perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error, and reappreciation of evidence to reach a different factual view is impermissible. In cheque dishonour prosecutions, Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act creates a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and the drawer must rebut it with cogent evidence. A signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over does not by itself defeat the presumption, and a fiduciary or professional relationship alone does not negate liability absent proof of coercion, undue influence, theft, or similar circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction in the absence of jurisdictional error or perversity; (ii) whether the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee and drawer of a cheque displaces the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, could interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction in the absence of jurisdictional error or perversity.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is limited. Concurrent factual findings of the trial court and appellate court are not to be upset merely because another view is possible. Interference is justified only where there is perversity, patent illegality, or jurisdictional error. Reappreciation of evidence to substitute a different factual conclusion is impermissible in revision.

Conclusion: The High Court was not justified in reversing the concurrent conviction on reappraisal of evidence.

Issue (ii): Whether the existence of a fiduciary relationship between the payee and drawer of a cheque displaces the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Section 139 raises a rebuttable presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a debt or other liability. The burden lies on the drawer to rebut that presumption by cogent evidence. A signed blank cheque, voluntarily handed over, does not by itself defeat the presumption. Mere fiduciary or professional relationship between the parties does not nullify the statutory presumption absent evidence of coercion, undue influence, theft, or other circumstances showing absence of liability.

Conclusion: The fiduciary relationship did not disentitle the payee to the benefit of the presumption under Section 139.

Final Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was restored, and the complainant's case was upheld with enhanced monetary compensation in lieu of imprisonment.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, a signed cheque voluntarily made over to the payee carries a rebuttable presumption of legally enforceable liability, and revisional courts cannot disturb concurrent findings of guilt absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

---