Cheque presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act upheld where execution was proved and rebuttal evidence was absent.

Once execution, signature and handing over of the cheque were proved through the complainant's evidence and supporting witness, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arose in favour of the holder. The accused failed to adduce probable evidence to rebut those presumptions or to support the plea that the cheque had been issued blank in an earlier transaction. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, concurrent factual findings are not to be reappreciated unless shown to be perverse or illegal. The conviction and sentence under Section 138 were therefore upheld, and no interference was warranted in revision.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act could be sustained on the basis of proof of execution and issuance of the cheque and the statutory presumptions, and whether interference was warranted in revision.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence, supported by another witness, established the transaction, the signature on the cheque, its execution and handing over by the accused. Once these foundational facts were proved, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused did not adduce evidence to rebut the presumptions or to probabilise the defence that the cheque had been issued blank in an earlier transaction. In revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, concurrent findings based on appreciation of evidence are not to be re-evaluated unless shown to be perverse or illegal.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld, and no interference was called for in revision.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution and issuance of a cheque are proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act arise, and the burden shifts to the accused to rebut them by probable evidence; concurrent factual findings sustaining conviction will not ordinarily be disturbed in revision.

---