Cheque dishonour presumption and finality of prior orders upheld; accused failed to rebut liability and conviction stood.

A judgment rendered by a competent court under the law then in force cannot be treated as non est merely because a later Full Bench adopts a different forum position; the proper course is to challenge it through the available appellate or revisional remedy, and the accused's revision could be treated as an appeal and examined on merits. In the cheque dishonour dispute, the cheque bore the accused's signature and the surrounding circumstances supported the complainant's loan version, while the accused's blank-cheque defence was unsupported by reliable evidence and did not rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the revision filed by the accused could be treated as an appeal and whether the earlier appellate order of the Sessions Court could be disregarded on the ground of a subsequent change in the forum position; (ii) whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were established and the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption.

Issue (i): whether the revision filed by the accused could be treated as an appeal and whether the earlier appellate order of the Sessions Court could be disregarded on the ground of a subsequent change in the forum position.

Analysis: The order held that a judgment rendered by a competent court while the law then declared was operating cannot be treated as non est merely because a later Full Bench took a different view. The proper course was to test such an order through the available appellate or revisional process, not to ignore it. The Court also held that there was no provision in the criminal procedure law for transposing the complainant as appellant in the manner suggested, but the accused's revision could be considered as an appeal and the grounds could be examined accordingly.

Conclusion: The revision was rightly treated as an appeal, but the Sessions Court's judgment could not be disregarded and had to be examined on merits.

Issue (ii): whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were established and the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The Court found that the cheque bore the accused's signature and that the complainant's version of the loan transaction and issuance of the cheque was supported by the surrounding circumstances. The accused's defence of a blank cheque allegedly taken by force in connection with some hire-purchase transaction was not substantiated by reliable evidence. The belated complaints and self-serving documents did not probabilise the defence or rebut the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Conclusion: The offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was made out and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption.

Final Conclusion: The conviction entered by the appellate court was sustained, and the challenge raised by the accused did not succeed.

Ratio Decidendi: A competent court's judgment rendered under the law then in force cannot be ignored as non est merely because the governing forum rule is later altered, and in cheque dishonour cases the accused must rebut the presumption of liability with credible evidence to avoid conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

---