Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, so conviction for cheque dishonour was not interfered with in revision.

Conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were left undisturbed because the accused admitted ownership and signature of the cheque, led no defence evidence, and the cheque was proved to have been dishonoured for insufficient funds after due notice and service. The statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant, and the accused failed to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. No material irregularity or miscarriage of justice was shown in the concurrent findings, and the limited revisional jurisdiction did not justify re-appreciation of evidence.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act required interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from issuance of the cheque.

Analysis: The accused admitted ownership and signature of the cheque and did not lead defence evidence. The cheque was proved to have been presented and dishonoured for insufficient funds, and the demand notice and its service were established. In these circumstances, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The accused failed to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, and no material irregularity or miscarriage of justice was shown in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The revisional court's jurisdiction being limited, re-appreciation of evidence was not warranted.

Conclusion: Interference with the conviction and sentence was declined, and the revision petition failed.

---