Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remain unrebutted without credible evidence, sustaining conviction and sentence.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 remained unrebutted because the applicants led no credible evidence of coercion, forgery, or absence of legally enforceable liability; the conviction was therefore upheld. The territorial-jurisdiction objection was also rejected, as it was not raised before the Magistrate and the existing complaint forum was sustained. No procedural infirmity arose from the alleged denial of oral hearing before the Sessions Court, since the record showed counsel had been heard. Finding no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings, the revisional court declined interference and left the conviction and sentence intact.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the applicants had rebutted the statutory presumption arising in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by showing absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability; (ii) whether the challenge to territorial jurisdiction had merit; and (iii) whether denial of oral hearing before the Sessions Court vitiated the appellate order.

Issue (i): whether the applicants had rebutted the statutory presumption arising in a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 by showing absence of a legally enforceable debt or liability.

Analysis: The revision was tested against concurrent findings that the complainant had advanced substantial amounts for supply of iron ore and that only part supply was proved by the defence. The applicants' own stand at trial was that the cheques were forcibly obtained and signatures of one partner were forged. No evidence was led to substantiate coercion or forgery. In that background, the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained unrebutted on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities. The later argument that the complainant had not produced a statement of accounts or precise quantification of liability was inconsistent with the defence actually taken and did not undermine the concurrent factual findings.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld against the applicants.

Issue (ii): whether the challenge to territorial jurisdiction had merit.

Analysis: The complaint was filed and remained pending in the legal setting then governing complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The objection was not raised before the Magistrate. The later reliance on territorial-jurisdiction objections was found unhelpful, and the Sessions Court's view rejecting that contention was sustained.

Conclusion: The objection to territorial jurisdiction was rejected.

Issue (iii): whether denial of oral hearing before the Sessions Court vitiated the appellate order.

Analysis: The record of proceedings and the appellate judgment showed that counsel for the applicants had been heard. The affidavit filed to dispute the record was not accepted as a basis to displace the court record.

Conclusion: No procedural infirmity was found on this ground.

Final Conclusion: The revisional court found no perversity or legal error in the concurrent findings of guilt and declined to interfere, leaving the conviction and sentence intact.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the statutory presumption of consideration and liability stands unless rebutted by credible evidence, and revisional interference with concurrent findings is warranted only when those findings are shown to be perverse or unsustainable.

---