Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remain unrebutted where a probable defence is not proved in revision.

Admission of the cheque and signatures triggered the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the burden on the accused to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The accused's claim that the cheque was only a security cheque and that payment had been made in cash was not proved, so the presumption of legally enforceable liability remained unrebutted and the conviction under Section 138 was sustained. Revisional interference was also unwarranted because the concurrent findings below disclosed no illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted cheque and signatures so as to displace liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings sustaining the conviction and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the accused successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from the admitted cheque and signatures so as to displace liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque, its signatures, dishonour, service of notice, and the underlying transaction of purchase were proved on record. Once execution of the cheque was not disputed, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, either through defence evidence or from the complainant's material. The plea that the cheque was a security cheque and that payment had already been made in cash was not proved. The defence evidence did not establish any material sufficient to create doubt about the legally enforceable liability.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings sustaining the conviction and sentence.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397(1) and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and does not permit routine re-appreciation of evidence where the trial court and appellate court have recorded concurrent findings supported by the record. No glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice was shown. The courts below had correctly appreciated the evidence and the defence did not demonstrate any material irregularity warranting interference.

Conclusion: No ground for revisional interference was made out, and the concurrent findings were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed, the conviction and sentence were sustained, and the accused remained liable to undergo the awarded sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: Admission of the cheque and signature triggers the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act, and those presumptions can be displaced only by a probable defence established on the balance of probabilities; in revision, concurrent findings will not be disturbed absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

---