Cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act stood unrebutted, so revision interference and remand were rejected.

Cheque issuance and signature were admitted, so the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of enforcement. The accused did not reply to the statutory notice, did not enter the witness box, and failed to rebut those presumptions with credible defence evidence. The alleged material alteration was not accepted as a legal bar, and the insolvency record also contained an admission of cheque issuance. In the absence of perversity, illegality, or error in the concurrent findings, revision interference was unwarranted and remand was declined; the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision, and whether the matter should be remanded to enable the accused to lead defence evidence.

Analysis: The cheque and signature were admitted, and the alleged material alteration was not accepted as a legal bar to enforcement. The accused had not replied to the statutory notice, had not entered the witness box, and had not rebutted the statutory presumptions arising under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The record of the insolvency proceedings also contained an admission of issuance of the cheque. In these circumstances, no error, illegality, or perversity was found in the concurrent findings of the courts below. As the accused had already been afforded opportunity at the trial stage, a remand could not be ordered merely because a fresh defence was raised in revision.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld, and the request for remand was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate, and they can be displaced only by a credible rebuttal; a new defence raised for the first time in revision does not justify interference or remand absent proof of perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings.

---