Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, so conviction for cheque dishonour stood.

Cheques and signatures being admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the complainant. To displace it, the accused had to show on a preponderance of probabilities that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. The defence version, a belated complaint, absence of supporting material, and failure to reply to notice were found insufficient, and the stated inconsistency about the loan source and purpose did not affect the core issue. The conviction under Section 138 was therefore not shown to require interference in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be interfered with in revision when the cheque and signature were admitted and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque and the signature on it were not disputed, so the statutory presumption arose in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by bringing on record material showing, on a preponderance of probability, that the cheque was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt. The defence version and reliance on a belated complaint were found insufficient, especially as no supporting material was produced, no reply was sent to the notice, and the alternative explanation did not displace the complainant's case. The alleged inconsistency regarding the source and purpose of the loan did not go to the root of the matter.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 did not warrant interference in revision.

---