Revisional interference is limited in cheque dishonour cases, while statutory presumptions of liability survive a blank-cheque defence.

Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is supervisory and cannot be used as a second appeal; interference with concurrent findings is justified only for perversity, gross unreasonableness, absence of material, or miscarriage of justice. In cheque dishonour prosecutions, proof of execution of the cheque and the transaction activates the presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, rebuttable only on a preponderance of probabilities. A signed blank cheque and the company's liquidation, on the facts noted, do not by themselves rebut those presumptions. The conviction and sentence were affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case; (ii) whether liquidation of the company and the defence of a blank cheque could rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Issue (i): whether the revisional court should interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and is not to be exercised as a second appeal. Interference is warranted only where the findings are perverse, grossly unreasonable, based on no material, or suffer from non-consideration of relevant material or miscarriage of justice. Where the trial court and appellate court have concurrently appreciated the evidence, the revisional court will not re-appreciate the evidence merely because another view is possible.

Conclusion: Interference with the concurrent conviction and sentence was not warranted.

Issue (ii): whether liquidation of the company and the defence of a blank cheque could rebut the statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act

Analysis: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, once execution of the cheque and the underlying transaction are proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the complainant. The presumption includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability and is rebuttable only on a preponderance of probabilities. A signed blank cheque does not by itself displace the presumption, and the mere fact that the company is under liquidation does not negate prosecution under Section 138 on the facts found.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions were not rebutted and the defences raised did not defeat the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque were affirmed, and the revision petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional interference is limited to correcting perversity or illegality, and in a cheque dishonour prosecution the statutory presumptions of consideration and liability arise upon proof of the cheque and signature, rebuttable only on a preponderance of probabilities.

---