Cheque dishonour presumption under Section 139 stands unless rebutted on preponderance of probability; revisional interference remains limited.

Once issuance and dishonour of a cheque are proved in a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 operates against the accused. That presumption can be displaced only by a credible defence proved on a preponderance of probability; a bare claim that the cheques were given as security, without a clear account of their delivery or steps taken to recover them, is insufficient. The text also notes that revisional jurisdiction is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as a second appeal where concurrent findings are supported by the record. In the absence of a successful rebuttal, the conviction under Section 138 was not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision on the ground that the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 of that Act.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence established the loan transaction, issuance of the impugned cheques, their dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and failure to pay. The defence version that the cheques were issued only as security for a promised education loan was found unconvincing because neither the accused nor the supporting witness gave a clear account of when the cheques were handed over or why no steps were taken to retrieve them after the alleged failure to arrange the loan. The accused admitted issuance of the cheques, did not issue stop-payment instructions, and did not send a reply notice. In revisional jurisdiction, the Court also noted that it would not act as a second appellate court where concurrent findings were supported by evidence. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption on the standard of preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision.

Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected and the concurrent conviction was affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once issuance and dishonour of the cheque are proved, the statutory presumption of liability operates and can be displaced only by a credible defence established on a preponderance of probability; absent such rebuttal, concurrent findings of conviction are not to be disturbed in revision.

---