Revisional scrutiny in cheque dishonour cases remains limited, with statutory presumptions sustained unless rebutted on probabilities.

Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were held to operate on the basis of the complainant's evidence, surrounding circumstances and documentary record, and the accused failed to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was treated as supervisory, not appellate, so reappreciation of evidence was impermissible absent perversity, illegality or gross miscarriage of justice. The concurrent conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustained, while the sentence was separately considered and reduced to secure payment of the cheque amount.

---

---

Issues: Whether the revisional court should interfere with the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence, supported by the surrounding circumstances and the documentary record, was held sufficient to attract the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The accused did not rebut the presumption on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The revisional court reiterated that its jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is supervisory and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as if in appeal, absent perversity, illegality, or gross miscarriage of justice. While the conviction was not found open to interference, the sentence was examined separately and considered liable to be reduced to secure payment of the cheque amount.

Conclusion: The concurrent conviction was sustained, but the sentence was modified in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings of guilt under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be disturbed unless they are perverse, illegal, or manifestly unjust, and the statutory presumption of debt or liability under Sections 118 and 139 stands unless rebutted on a preponderance of probabilities.

---