Cheque dishonour presumptions and limited revisional interference sustain conviction where the accused fails to rebut liability.

Revisional interference in a cheque dishonour matter is confined to clear illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice, and a revisional court does not reappreciate concurrent findings merely to reach a different view. Once issuance of the cheque and signature are admitted, statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder that the cheque was issued for a lawful liability. The accused must rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities with credible evidence; a bare plea of misuse without support is insufficient. On the stated facts, the presumptions were not rebutted and the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence in a cheque dishonour case. (ii) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from issuance and signature on the cheque so as to displace liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

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

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and not equivalent to a second appeal. Interference is warranted only where there is a glaring illegality, gross miscarriage of justice, or material perversity in the findings. Where the trial court and the first appellate court have concurrently appreciated the evidence and returned reasoned findings, the revisional court does not reassess the evidence merely to take a different view.

Conclusion: The revisional court declined interference with the concurrent findings.

Issue (ii): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from issuance and signature on the cheque so as to displace liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis: Once issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon are admitted, the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operate in favour of the holder of the cheque that it was issued for discharge of a lawful liability. The burden then shifts to the accused to raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheque was issued to another person and misused was not substantiated, and the accused failed to produce credible supporting evidence or materially undermine the complainant's version. The complainant's evidence regarding the transaction, dishonour, and notice remained unshaken.

Conclusion: The statutory presumptions were not rebutted, and the conviction under Section 138 was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were sustained, and the revisional petition failed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a cheque dishonour prosecution, once issuance and signature on the cheque are admitted, statutory presumptions operate in favour of the holder, and revisional interference with concurrent convictions is justified only on a clear showing of illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

---