Statutory presumption on a signed cheque and debt acknowledgment requires credible rebuttal; revision cannot reweigh concurrent findings.

A signed cheque and acknowledgment receipt for a loan trigger the statutory presumption of liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and the accused must rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable material. Mere denial, unsupported allegations of a different transaction, non-examination of a material witness, or asserted tax irregularities are insufficient to displace that presumption. The text also explains that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal; interference is justified only where findings are perverse, illegal, or cause miscarriage of justice. It states that concurrent findings based on evidence and the acknowledgment receipt will not ordinarily be disturbed in revision.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the cheque and acknowledgment receipt so as to displace liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the cheque and acknowledgment receipt so as to displace liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881

Analysis: The cheque was signed by the petitioner and the acknowledgment receipt recorded receipt of a loan of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Once these foundational facts were established, the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder. The defence raised by the petitioner, based on an alleged different commercial transaction and misuse of the cheque, was found unsupported by reliable material. Mere denial, unsupported assertions, non-examination of a material witness, and reliance on alleged tax irregularities did not establish a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption and remained liable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (ii): whether the revisional court could interfere with the concurrent findings of the courts below

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and is not to be exercised as if it were a second appeal. Interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, illegal, or result in miscarriage of justice. The courts below had assessed the evidence, relied upon the acknowledgment receipt, and rejected the petitioner's defence with reasons. No perversity or manifest illegality was shown to justify reassessment of evidence in revision.

Conclusion: No ground for interference in revision was made out.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and enhanced compensation were left undisturbed, and the revision petition was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, a signed cheque supported by an acknowledgment of debt raises a presumption of liability, and revision will not lie to upset concurrent findings unless those findings are perverse or illegal.

---