Statutory presumption in cheque dishonour cases remains intact unless rebutted; revisional courts rarely disturb concurrent findings.

In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the cheque holder once the loan transaction, cheque issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice are proved. The accused must rebut that presumption by contrary evidence; mere challenge to the bank witness's personal knowledge is insufficient where the documents and cheque are duly proved. In revision, concurrent findings are not disturbed absent perversity, and the revisional court will not reappreciate evidence on a fresh factual basis.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved interference in revision, and whether the presumption of issuance of cheque towards a debt or liability stood rebutted.

Analysis: The complainant bank proved the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, its dishonour for insufficiency of funds, service of statutory notice, and the accused's failure to lead any evidence in rebuttal. In proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operate in favour of the holder of the cheque unless contrary evidence is produced. The revisional court declined to reappreciate evidence in the absence of perversity in the concurrent findings recorded by the courts below. The objection that the bank witness lacked personal knowledge was held insufficient because the material documents and the cheque itself were duly proved.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and no revisional interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings sustaining a conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 will not be interfered with unless they are perverse, and the statutory presumption of a cheque having been issued for discharge of debt or liability stands unless rebutted by the accused.

---