Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld where signature admission and dishonour evidence were unrebutted.

Admission of the cheque and promissory note signatures, coupled with dishonour for insufficiency of funds and service of statutory notice, triggered the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the payee. As the accused led no defence evidence and failed to rebut the presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability, the concurrent findings of guilt were not shown to suffer from jurisdictional error or illegality. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore upheld in revision, and the modified sentence and compensation remained undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained in revision, and whether the statutory presumptions stood rebutted.

Analysis: The accused admitted the signature on the cheque and promissory note, and the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds after presentation and statutory notice. In such a case, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the complainant and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut them. The accused led no defence evidence and did not effectively displace the presumption of legally enforceable debt or liability. The revisional court also found no jurisdictional error or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld, and the revision was not liable to succeed.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution for cheque dishonour was held proved, the modified sentence and compensation were left undisturbed, and the accused remained liable to undergo the punishment imposed by the appellate court.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is admitted and dishonour is proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate in favour of the payee, and in revision concurrent findings of guilt will not be interfered with unless the accused rebuts the presumption or shows a jurisdictional error.

---