Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases stood unrebutted; inconsistent defence and limited revision scope sustained conviction and compensation.

Conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld because the drawer failed to rebut the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability with probable and credible material. Denial of signature, shifting claims of theft, absence of an FIR, and the lack of immediate steps for handwriting comparison did not displace the finding, especially where concurrent factual findings existed and revisional interference was limited. The complainant's failure to file an income-tax return, by itself, did not negate the loan transaction. The sentence of admonition and the compensation order were also left undisturbed because no material irregularity or perversity was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision on the grounds of denial of signature, alleged theft of cheque, and alleged failure to prove source of funds; (ii) Whether the sentence of admonition and compensation required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision on the grounds of denial of signature, alleged theft of cheque, and alleged failure to prove source of funds?

Analysis: The cheque was not returned for want of signature mismatch but because the account was blocked. The drawer did not dispute the cheque signature at the earliest stage and did not take effective steps for handwriting comparison, while the complainant's application for expert examination was opposed. The defence version shifted between different explanations as to where the cheque was allegedly lost or stolen, and no FIR was lodged. In view of the statutory presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque, the conduct of the drawer, the admissions in the defence notice, and the limited scope of revisional interference with concurrent factual findings, the presumption of legally enforceable liability was not rebutted. Lack of income-tax return by the complainant by itself did not disprove the loan transaction.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld and the revisionist's challenge failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence of admonition and compensation required interference?

Analysis: The trial court had already adopted a lenient course by imposing admonition, and the compensation was affirmed on the basis of the cheque amount with interest. No material irregularity or perversity was shown in the sentencing or compensation order.

Conclusion: No interference was warranted with the sentence of admonition or the compensation order.

Final Conclusion: The revisional challenge was rejected, and the concurrent conviction and monetary liability were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is sufficiently established and the statutory presumptions under the cheque law operate, the accused must rebut them with probable and credible material; shifting and inconsistent defences, without prompt and effective support, will not dislodge liability, and revisional courts will not disturb concurrent findings absent perversity.

---