Cheque dishonour presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted only by a probable defence in revision.

Once execution of the cheque and signatures are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by showing a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence, the accused failed to displace the presumption of legally enforceable liability. The Court also restated that revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited, and concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence are not to be disturbed absent perversity or legal error.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings convicting the petitioner for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference in revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: The cheque and the signatures thereon were not denied, so the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder of the cheque. The burden therefore shifted to the accused to rebut the presumption by showing a probable defence on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. On the evidence on record, the accused failed to bring forward material sufficient to displace the presumption of a legally enforceable liability. The Court also noted the limited scope of interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, particularly where the courts below had recorded concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of evidence.

Conclusion: The revision failed and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld against the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once execution of the cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate and can be displaced only by a probable defence; in revisional jurisdiction, concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent perversity or legal error.

---