Revisional jurisdiction and cheque presumptions limit interference where concurrent conviction under negotiable instruments law is supported by evidence.

In revision, concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were not disturbed because interference under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC is confined to findings that are perverse, illegal, unreasonable, or vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence. The complainant's evidence proved the transaction and cheque issuance; once the cheque and signature were established, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, and the pleas that the cheque was only security or a blank cheque remained unsubstantiated. The conviction and modified sentence were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings convicting the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and with the sentence imposed, including the plea based on alleged non-proof of the transaction and misuse of a signed cheque.

Analysis: The scope of revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is limited, and interference is unwarranted unless the findings are perverse, illegal, unreasonable, or vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence. The complainant's evidence supported the transaction and issuance of the cheque, and once the cheque and signature were established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused did not rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities, and the plea that the cheque was issued as security or that it was a blank cheque was not substantiated by evidence.

Conclusion: No ground existed to disturb the concurrent conviction or the modified sentence, and the revision was liable to be rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings of fact will not be disturbed unless they are perverse or manifestly illegal, and once execution of the cheque and signature are established, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act must be rebutted by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities.

---