Statutory presumption in cheque cases remained unrebutted, so the conviction stood and remand for extra evidence was refused.

In a prosecution under the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission of the cheque signature triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and discharge of a debt or liability. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions with a probable, cogent defence; a bare plea that the cheque was given as security in a chitty transaction was insufficient, so the Section 138 conviction was upheld. The request to admit additional evidence in revision and remit the matter was rejected because the material was not essential to the core dispute and no failure of justice was shown. The sentence was altered to a fine with default imprisonment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether additional evidence should be received in revision and the matter remanded for fresh consideration; (ii) whether the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the conviction under Section 138 was liable to be interfered with.

Issue (i): Whether additional evidence should be received in revision and the matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Analysis: The accused sought to produce receipts said to relate to a chitty transaction and also sought to produce the reply notice and acknowledgment. The power to admit additional evidence in revision is exercised only when it is necessary in the interests of justice or to prevent failure of justice. The signature on the cheque was admitted, the statutory requirements for prosecution were satisfied, and the non-production of the reply notice and acknowledgment was not material to the core controversy. The case had been pending for many years, and a remand at that stage was found unwarranted.

Conclusion: The request to receive additional evidence and remand the matter was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood rebutted and the conviction under Section 138 was liable to be interfered with.

Analysis: Once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 arise that the cheque was issued for consideration and towards discharge of a debt or liability. The accused must then raise a probable defence with cogent evidence. A mere plea that the cheque was issued as security in a chitty transaction, without supporting defence evidence sufficient to displace the statutory presumption, was held inadequate. The revisional court would not reappreciate evidence to upset concurrent factual findings in the absence of perversity.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld and the challenge to guilt failed, though the sentence was modified to a fine with default imprisonment.

Final Conclusion: The conviction was sustained, the sentence was altered to a monetary penalty with default imprisonment, and the revision succeeded only to that limited extent.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission of the cheque signature attracts the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, which can be displaced only by a probable and cogent defence; in revision, concurrent findings will not be disturbed and remand for additional evidence is justified only when necessary to prevent failure of justice.

---