Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases survives admitted signature absent cogent rebuttal evidence.

Admission of signature on a cheque triggers the statutory presumption of legally enforceable liability, and that presumption is not displaced merely because another person filled in the cheque particulars or because the cheque was described as security. Without defence evidence or other cogent material showing rebuttal on a preponderance of probabilities, the presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act remains intact. In revision, interference is unwarranted where the concurrent findings below are supported by the record and no perversity or illegality is shown. The conviction for cheque dishonour was therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revision, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 139 stood rebutted.

Analysis: The signature on the cheque was admitted, and the drawer's case that the cheque was issued only as security did not by itself displace the presumption arising under Section 139. The fact that the cheque details were filled by another person was held to be immaterial once the cheque was voluntarily signed and delivered. The accused led no defence evidence, and the materials relied on did not establish rebuttal of the presumption on a preponderance of probabilities. The concurrent findings of the courts below were supported by the record, and the limited revisional jurisdiction did not permit interference in the absence of perversity or illegality.

Conclusion: The conviction and dismissal of the appeal were upheld, and the revision was found to be without merit.

Final Conclusion: The cheque dishonour conviction was sustained because the statutory presumption remained unrebutted and no revisional ground was made out for interference.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a signed cheque is admitted, the presumption of legally enforceable liability under Section 139 continues unless rebutted by cogent evidence, and the mere fact that the cheque particulars were filled by someone other than the drawer does not by itself defeat that presumption.

---