Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases remains intact absent a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque was found to have been issued towards part payment of an admitted loan liability, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and followed by valid notice. Documentary evidence supported the complainant's case, and the accused's version that only part of the loan had been advanced did not rebut the statutory presumption under Section 118. The accused failed to establish a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities, and the concurrent findings of guilt disclosed no revisional perversity. The conviction and sentence were therefore upheld, with no interference in revision warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were liable to be interfered with in revision on the ground that the complainant failed to prove the loan transaction and the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The cheque was issued towards part payment of the admitted loan liability, it was dishonoured for insufficient funds, and statutory notice was served. The documentary evidence supported the complainant's case that the loan of Rs. 1,60,000/- had been advanced and that the cheque represented discharge of liability. The defence version that only part of the loan had been advanced on different dates did not displace the written documents or rebut the presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On the evidence, the accused failed to establish a probable defence on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities, and no revisional error in the concurrent findings was shown.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld and no interference in revision was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition failed because the statutory presumption remained unrebutted and the concurrent findings of guilt under the cheque dishonour law were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the accused must rebut the statutory presumption by a probable defence on preponderance of probabilities, and in revision concurrent findings will not be interfered with absent legal perversity.

---