Presumption of legally enforceable debt under cheque dishonour law remained unrebutted, so revision could not upset concurrent findings.

Where the cheque and signature were admitted and statutory notice went unanswered, the presumption of legally enforceable debt under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted. The defence that the cheque was issued only as security was not supported by credible evidence, and the revisional court declined to reappreciate concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error or illegality. Conviction for cheque dishonour, with the modified sentence and compensation, was therefore left undisturbed in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with in revision in the absence of rebuttal of the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque was admitted, the signature was not disputed, and the statutory notice was received without reply. The defence that the cheque was issued only as security for a loan obtained by the accused's brother was not substantiated by credible evidence. The evidence of the defence witness did not dislodge the complainant's case and, on the contrary, supported the fact of construction of a house. In such circumstances, the presumption of legally enforceable debt remained unrebutted. The revisional court also noted that it would not reappreciate concurrent findings of fact absent jurisdictional error or illegality.

Conclusion: The conviction and modified sentence were upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision.

Final Conclusion: The criminal revisions failed, and the conviction for cheque dishonour together with the modified sentence and compensation were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque and signature are admitted, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates in favour of the complainant, and revision will not lie to disturb concurrent findings unless the accused rebuts that presumption or shows jurisdictional error or illegality.

---