Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act were upheld as the accused failed to rebut the cheque dishonour case.

Admission of the cheque and signatures attracted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the accused was required to rebut them by a probable defence on the balance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the loan amount differed was unsupported by cogent material, so the conviction and sentence were not disturbed in revision. The legal notice was also held to be within the one-month statutory period, as it was issued on the thirtieth day after receipt of dishonour information. Concurrent findings were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was issued within the statutory period; (ii) whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from admission of cheque and signatures so as to warrant interference in revision with the conviction and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the legal notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was issued within the statutory period.

Analysis: The notice was issued on the thirtieth day from receipt of information regarding dishonour of the cheque. The Court held that the notice was dispatched within the prescribed one-month period and, therefore, the statutory requirement of notice was satisfied.

Conclusion: The notice was within limitation and this objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumption arising from admission of cheque and signatures so as to warrant interference in revision with the conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Once the cheque and signatures were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The burden shifted to the accused to raise a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the loan amount was different was not supported by cogent material. In revisional jurisdiction, interference is limited to correcting illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and no such error was shown in the concurrent findings of the courts below.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions, and the conviction and sentence were not liable to be interfered with.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, the concurrent findings of guilt were upheld, and the sentence was left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission of the cheque and signatures activates the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, and the accused must rebut them by a probable defence on the balance of probabilities; in revision, concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent illegality or miscarriage of justice.

---