Statutory presumptions in cheque dishonour cases apply once execution is admitted, and a security cheque may still attract liability.

Where the cheque and signature were admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the holder, and the accused had to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued only as security was not substantiated, while the complainant and bank evidence proved presentation, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, notice, and non-payment. The ingredients of Section 138 were therefore satisfied, and guilt was upheld. Revisional interference under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was unwarranted because no illegality, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice was shown in the concurrent findings.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out, including the effect of the cheque being asserted as a security cheque and the operation of the statutory presumptions; (ii) Whether, in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the cheque dishonour prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was made out, including the effect of the cheque being asserted as a security cheque and the operation of the statutory presumptions.

Analysis: The issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon were not disputed. Once that foundational fact stood established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came into play in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused was required to rebut those presumptions by raising a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities, either from the complainant's material or by independent evidence. The defence that the cheque had been issued only as security was not probabilized. The evidence of the complainant and the bank witnesses established presentation of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of legal notice, and failure to make payment. A cheque issued as security is not outside the scope of Section 138 where the underlying liability exists and the cheque matures for presentation.

Conclusion: The ingredients of Section 138 were proved and the defence based on a security cheque failed; the finding of guilt was upheld against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether, in revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, there was any ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and cannot be used as a substitute for a second appeal or for routine reappreciation of evidence. Interference is justified only where there is illegality, material irregularity, or miscarriage of justice. The record disclosed that the trial court and the appellate court had appreciated the evidence properly and returned concurrent findings supported by the material on record. No glaring error of law or fact, nor any failure of justice, was demonstrated to warrant interference.

Conclusion: No revisional interference was warranted and the concurrent findings of the courts below were maintained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act stood affirmed, and the revisional challenge failed for want of merit.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of the cheque is admitted or proved, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate, and a cheque issued as security may attract Section 138 if the underlying liability exists and the accused fails to rebut the presumption by a probable defence; revisional interference is limited to patent illegality or miscarriage of justice.

---