Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained where cheque execution was admitted and rebuttal evidence was found lacking.

Admitted cheque execution and signature attracted the statutory presumption that the instrument was issued towards a legally recoverable debt, and the accused was required to rebut it with credible evidence. The defence was found unconvincing because the accused admitted receipt of the statutory notice but gave no reply, did not challenge the complainant's lending capacity at the proper stage, and failed to substantiate the alleged defence transaction or examine the material witness. The concurrent findings below were therefore held to be justified, and interference with the conviction and sentence was not warranted in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required interference in revision.

Analysis: The cheque and the accused's signature were admitted, which attracted the statutory presumption under Section 139 that the cheque was issued towards discharge of a legally recoverable debt. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by acceptable evidence, but the defence was found unconvincing. The accused admitted service of the statutory notice yet did not reply to it, and there was no denial of the complainant's lending capacity at the appropriate stage. The alleged defence transaction was not substantiated, the material witness was not examined, and the supporting testimony did not displace the presumption. Applying the settled principle that the presumption under Section 139 can be rebutted only by credible evidence, the concurrent findings of the courts below were held to be justified.

Conclusion: Interference with the conviction and sentence was not warranted, and the revision petition failed.

---