Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained the conviction where cheque execution was admitted and security plea failed.

In revision, the HC held that concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would not be disturbed because revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 CrPC does not permit re-appreciation of evidence like a second appeal. Once execution of the cheques was admitted and proved, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the holder, including a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused failed to rebut that presumption on a preponderance of probabilities; the claim that the cheques were issued only as security was found improbable in light of cross-examination admissions and the absence of notice, complaint, or stop-payment instructions. The absence of documentary proof of the complainant's financial capacity did not displace the unrebutted statutory presumption.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision on the ground that the complainant had not proved legally recoverable debt or financial capacity and that the cheques were issued only as security.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and does not permit a re-appreciation of evidence as in a second appeal. Once execution of the cheques was proved and admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque, including the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused had to rebut that presumption by a probable defence on the standard of preponderance of probabilities. The defence that the cheques were issued as security for a plot transaction was found improbable in view of the admissions in cross-examination and the absence of any notice, complaint, or stoppage instructions. The failure to produce documentary proof of financial capacity did not matter because the statutory presumption remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The concurrent finding that the cheques were issued towards a legally enforceable liability was upheld and no interference was warranted in revision.

---