Revisional interference in cheque dishonour cases is limited where concurrent findings and statutory presumptions remain unrebutted.

Revisional interference with concurrent findings in a cheque dishonour prosecution is not warranted absent jurisdictional error or perversity. The complainant's evidence on the loan, issuance and dishonour of the cheque, statutory notice, and non-payment was accepted, while the accused's claim that the cheque was torn, forged, or misused was disbelieved on the evidence. The trial court's signature comparison and assessment of surrounding circumstances disclosed no infirmity. The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption on a preponderance of probability, so the conviction and sentence were upheld and the revision was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings convicting the accused for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: The concurrent findings of the courts below were based on the complainant's evidence regarding the loan, issuance and dishonour of the cheque, notice and non-payment. The accused's defence that the cheque was torn, forged, or otherwise misused was disbelieved on the evidence, and the trial court's comparison of signatures and surrounding circumstances did not disclose any infirmity. In revisional jurisdiction, interference with concurrent findings is unwarranted unless there is a jurisdictional error or perversity. The accused's attempt to rebut the statutory presumption did not succeed on a preponderance of probability.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and the revision was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: In revisional proceedings, concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent jurisdictional error or perversity, and the statutory presumption in a cheque dishonour case may be rebutted only on a preponderance of probability.

---