Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law stood unrebutted, so conviction was upheld in revision.

In a Section 138 NI Act prosecution, dishonour of the cheque, service of statutory notice, and the accused's failure to reply supported the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused's denial of the transaction and signatures was not accepted because no specimen signatures were produced for the relevant period, no witness box evidence was given, and the allegation of forgery remained unsubstantiated. The concurrent findings below were therefore supported by the record, and the conviction and sentence were upheld in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The cheque issued by the accused was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, statutory notice was served, and no reply was sent. The accused disputed the transaction and the signatures, but did not produce specimen signatures for the relevant period, did not step into the witness box, and did not substantiate the plea of forgery. The statutory presumption under Section 139 remained unrebutted, and the concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and the conduct of the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld and the revision was rejected.

Final Conclusion: Concurrent findings of guilt were left undisturbed, and the revision failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, once execution and dishonour of the cheque are established, the statutory presumption under Section 139 operates and can be displaced only by a credible rebuttal; mere denial, unsupported allegations of forgery, and failure to adduce available evidence justify affirmance of conviction.

---