Statutory presumption under cheque dishonour law upheld where coercion defence failed and concurrent findings were left undisturbed.

Admission of the cheque signature triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the complainant. The accused was required to rebut that presumption by showing a probable defence, but the materials relied on to allege coercion and police-station procurement of the cheque were found insufficient. The Madras HC also found no perversity or gross injustice in the concurrent findings below and declined to reappreciate the evidence in revision. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore sustained and the revision was rejected.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision on the plea that the cheque was obtained by coercion and was not issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque having been admitted, the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused was therefore required to rebut that presumption by bringing on record facts and circumstances showing a probable defence. The materials relied on to suggest coercion and police-station procurement of the cheque did not satisfactorily establish that defence, and the evidence was held insufficient to displace the presumption. The revisional court also found no perversity or gross injustice in the concurrent findings of the courts below and declined to reappreciate the evidence as if in appeal.

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

---