Revisional interference in cheque dishonour cases remains limited where statutory presumptions under the NI Act are not rebutted.

Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is limited to illegality, perversity or impropriety and is not a second appeal for reappreciation of evidence. Applying that standard, the court noted that the cheque transaction, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and bank materials supported the complainant's case. The accused admitted the cheque and signature but failed to prove that it was only a blank security cheque misused by the complainant or to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The concurrent conviction under Section 138 was therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by establishing that the cheque was a blank security cheque misused by the complainant and that no legally enforceable debt existed.

Analysis: The revisional court reiterated that interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to cases of illegality, perversity or impropriety, and that revision is not a second appeal for reappreciation of evidence. The complainant's version of lending the amount was supported by the cheque transaction, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice, and the bank statement showing adequate funds. The accused admitted the cheque and signature, but failed to substantiate the plea of misuse of an earlier blank cheque or to probabilise the defence on the standard applicable to rebuttable presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions or show any perversity in the concurrent findings, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

---