Cheque dishonour presumption remained unrebutted; conviction, sentence and compensation were upheld in revision.

Once issuance of the cheque and the drawer's signature were admitted, a statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt arose under cheque dishonour law. The accused had to rebut that presumption with credible material, but the defence of loss, delivery to another person, and misuse remained inconsistent and unsubstantiated by the complaint record or the Section 313 CrPC statement. The complaint evidence, bank return memo, legal notice, and proof of service supported the prosecution version, and the courts below found no infirmity in the conviction, sentence, or compensation. Revision interference was therefore unwarranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from admitted issuance and signature on the cheque.

Analysis: The cheque, bank return memo, legal notice and service thereof supported the complainant's case. Once issuance of the cheque and the signature were admitted, a presumption of a legally enforceable debt arose in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused was required to rebut that presumption, but the defence remained unsupported by reliable material. The revisionist's versions regarding loss of cheque, alleged delivery to another person, and alleged misuse were inconsistent and were not substantiated by the original complaint or by the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The reasoning of the courts below on guilt and on the award of compensation did not suffer from infirmity.

Conclusion: The presumption under the cheque dishonour law was not rebutted, and interference with the conviction or sentence was unwarranted.

---