Section 139 presumption in cheque cases stands unrebutted when no credible evidence shows the cheque was only security.

Execution of the cheque was admitted, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut that presumption: no reply was sent to the statutory notice, the alleged recipient of the earlier loan was not examined, and no documents or account details were produced to show that the cheque was issued only as security or that the liability had been discharged. On that material, the concurrent findings that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that the offence under Section 138 was made out were not shown to be perverse or erroneous, and the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be interfered with, and whether the accused had rebutted the presumption under Section 139 by establishing that the cheque was issued only as security.

Analysis: The cheque execution was not denied, so the statutory presumption under Section 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused did not examine the person said to have received the earlier loan, did not send any reply to the statutory notice disputing liability, and produced no documents or account details to show that the cheque was issued merely as security or that the underlying liability had been discharged. In the absence of credible rebuttal material, the concurrent findings that the cheque was issued towards a legally enforceable debt and that the offence under Section 138 was made out were not shown to be perverse or erroneous.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was sustained and the revision was liable to be dismissed.

---