Signed blank or security cheque did not rebut the Section 139 presumption; concurrent conviction under Section 138 was sustained.

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, a signed blank cheque or security cheque did not, on the facts proved, displace the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused had to rebut that presumption with cogent evidence, and in the absence of defence evidence the complainant's version remained unrebutted, so liability subsisted. The revisional court also found no perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence in the concurrent findings of conviction, and held that revision does not lie merely because another view is possible. The conviction and sentence were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused could escape liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the plea that the cheque was a signed blank cheque or a security cheque and not issued towards a legally enforceable debt. (ii) Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction in the absence of perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the accused could escape liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on the plea that the cheque was a signed blank cheque or a security cheque and not issued towards a legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: The cheque was admitted to be signed by the accused. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the burden lay on the accused to rebut it by cogent evidence. A signed blank cheque voluntarily handed over does not by itself negate liability. The plea that the cheque was issued as security also did not, on the facts proved, displace the presumption, particularly when no defence evidence was led and the complainant's version remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The plea of blank cheque or security cheque did not rebut the presumption, and liability under Section 138 was held to subsist against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction in the absence of perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence.

Analysis: The trial court and the appellate court had appreciated the evidence, including the complainant's testimony and the surrounding circumstances, and had returned concurrent findings against the accused. No material was shown to demonstrate perversity, illegality, or misreading of evidence. In revision, interference is not warranted merely because another view is possible; it requires a jurisdictional or patent error in the findings below, which was absent.

Conclusion: Interference in revision was unwarranted, and the concurrent findings of conviction were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and the revision petition was rejected on merits.

Ratio Decidendi: A signed blank cheque or security cheque, without rebuttal evidence, attracts the statutory presumption of liability under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and revisional interference is impermissible absent perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings.

---