Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law remained unrebutted, so conviction and sentence were upheld in revision.

Admission of the cheque and the petitioner's signature attracted the presumption that it was issued towards a legally enforceable debt or liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act. The asserted defences that the cheque was given to another person, misused later, and that the account had already been closed were rejected because they were unsupported by reliable evidence and did not rebut the statutory presumption. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity also failed, as the presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted. In revision, the HC found no perversity, illegality, or impropriety in the concurrent findings and upheld the conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the petitioner's conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with in revision, having regard to the statutory presumptions arising from admitted issuance of the cheque and the alleged rebuttal defences.

Analysis: The cheque belonged to the petitioner's account and his signature on it was admitted, which attracted the presumption that it was issued in discharge of a debt or liability. The petitioner's defences, namely that the cheque had been issued to another person and misused, and that the account had been closed earlier, were found unsupported by reliable evidence and were inconsistent with the stand taken in the reply notice and other pleadings. The challenge to the complainant's financial capacity also failed because the presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted by acceptable evidence. In revision, interference was not warranted in the absence of perversity, illegality, or impropriety in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld and the revision petition was dismissed.

---