Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases stands unless rebutted by probable defence; revisional interference remains limited.

In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant proves the loan transaction, issuance and dishonour of the cheque, and service of statutory notice, the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act operates unless the accused rebuts it with a probable defence. A bare plea of repayment, unsupported by evidence, is insufficient to displace that presumption. In revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings are not interfered with absent glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice. The conviction was maintained, while the sentence was modified by reducing the fine and adjusting the default consequence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed by the courts below required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the conviction of the accused for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision.

Analysis: The complainant proved the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of statutory notice. The accused did not dispute his signature on the cheque or produce any material to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. His only defence was repayment, which was not substantiated by evidence. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, interference with concurrent findings is not warranted in the absence of glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no interference was called for on merits.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed by the courts below required modification.

Analysis: While maintaining the conviction, the Court considered the nature of the offence and the circumstances of the accused. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment and fine equal to twice the cheque amount was found capable of modification, and the fine was reduced with a consequential default sentence.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified by reducing the fine while maintaining the conviction.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of alteration of sentence, while the finding of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once the complainant establishes the foundational facts, the accused must rebut the statutory presumption by a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities; in revision, concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice.

---