Security cheque defence failed where evidence did not rebut the presumption in a cheque dishonour prosecution.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption by proving that the cheque was issued only as security. The cheque was dishonoured, statutory notice was received, and no reply was sent. The defence version was unsupported by acceptable and reliable material, and the surrounding circumstances did not corroborate the claim of a security cheque in business dealings. On proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, the concurrent findings of guilt were upheld and the conviction and sentence were not interfered with.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be set aside on the ground that the accused had rebutted the presumption and had established that the cheque was issued only as security.

Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured and the statutory notice was received, but no reply was sent. The accused failed to produce acceptable and reliable material to prove the defence that the cheque was only a security cheque in connection with business dealings. The alleged complaint and surrounding circumstances did not support the defence version. The Court found that the accused had not discharged the burden of rebutting the presumption in favour of the complainant and that the conviction recorded by the courts below was based on proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence.

Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed and the finding of guilt under Section 138 was upheld.

---