Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained conviction, but the sentence was reduced on revision.

In revision, the HC held that concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be interfered with where the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is supervisory and does not permit reappreciation of evidence absent perversity or miscarriage of justice. As the complainant's evidence and account statements established the transaction and cheque execution, a bare plea that the cheque was signed blank was insufficient without defence evidence or a probable rebuttal. The conviction was upheld, but the custodial sentence and default term were reduced while retaining the fine as compensation.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision in the absence of a rebuttal to the statutory presumptions. (ii) Whether the sentence imposed required modification.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision in the absence of a rebuttal to the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The revisional court's power under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is supervisory and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as in appeal unless the findings are perverse, wholly unreasonable, or cause miscarriage of justice. The complainant's evidence and account statements were accepted by both courts below to establish the transaction and execution of the cheque. Once signature on the cheque was not effectively displaced, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. A mere plea that the cheque was signed blank was insufficient in the absence of defence evidence or a probable rebuttal on a preponderance of probabilities.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the sentence imposed required modification.

Analysis: The conviction was sustained, but the sentence of six months' simple imprisonment with a substantial fine was found to be excessive in the circumstances. The fine could be retained as compensation under Section 357(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, while the custodial sentence and default term were liable to be reduced.

Conclusion: The sentence was modified and reduced.

Final Conclusion: The revision succeeded only to the extent of sentence reduction, while the finding of guilt remained undisturbed.

---