Statutory presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act prevailed as the accused failed to rebut the cheque dishonour case.

Under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque, dishonour, notice, and service were proved, and the admitted signature triggered the statutory presumption under Section 139. The accused was required to raise a probable defence, but produced no reply notice or defence evidence; objections about the loan date, non-production of the bond, alleged misuse of blank cheques, and Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act did not rebut the presumption or make the transaction unenforceable. In revision, interference was confined to illegality, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice, and none was shown; the concurrent conviction was therefore upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from the admitted cheque and signature.

Analysis: The cheque was admitted, dishonour was proved, notice was issued and served, and no reply notice or defence evidence was produced. In revisional jurisdiction, interference is limited and is warranted only where there is illegality, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice. The statutory presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operates once issuance and signature of the cheque are not disputed, and the burden shifts to the accused to establish a probable defence. The objections based on absence of a pleaded date of loan, non-production of the alleged bond, the plea that blank signed cheques were misused, and the contention based on Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 were not accepted as sufficient to displace the presumption or render the transaction unenforceable.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumption and the concurrent conviction was held to be legal and proper; no interference was called for in revision.

---