Cheque dishonour presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains effective unless rebutted by a probable defence.

Execution of the cheque having been admitted, the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder, and the accused was required to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities. The cheque dishonour, statutory notice, and non-payment were proved, while the defence of police pressure was unsupported by cogent evidence and did not displace the complainant's case of legally enforceable liability. On that footing, the ingredients of section 138 remained established and no interference in revision was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be set aside in revision on the ground that the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption or shown absence of legally enforceable liability.

Analysis: The cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, the statutory notice, and the failure to make payment were proved on record. The accused admitted execution of the affidavit undertaking payment and failed to adduce any cogent evidence to support the plea that the cheque was issued under police pressure. The Court held that the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates once execution of the cheque is admitted, and the burden then lies on the accused to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The materials on record did not establish any probable defence or dislodge the complainant's case of liability.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and no interference was warranted in revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the accused did not rebut the statutory presumption attached to the cheque and the ingredients of the offence under section 138 stood proved.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the presumption under sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operates in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut it by a probable defence established on a preponderance of probabilities.

---