Security cheques and statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained the conviction in revision.

Where cheque issuance and signatures are admitted, the drawer must rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; here, the accused failed to substantiate the plea of a smaller loan and repayment, so the presumptions remained unrebutted. A cheque issued as security can still attract Section 138 when it is presented against an existing enforceable liability, and in revision the concurrent findings were not disturbed because no patent illegality or miscarriage of justice was shown. The conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 required interference in revision, and whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumptions by setting up a probable defence of security cheques and a lesser loan amount.

Analysis: The cheque issuance and signatures were not disputed. The complainant's evidence established dishonour of the cheques and service of notice, while the accused failed to lead cogent evidence to support the plea that only a smaller amount had been borrowed and repaid. In the absence of a probable defence, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 continued to operate. The Court also held that a cheque issued as security can attract Section 138 if it matures for presentation against an existing liability. Since the matter arose in revision, interference with concurrent findings was unwarranted in the absence of any gross illegality or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: The challenge to the conviction failed, and the findings of guilt and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld.

Final Conclusion: The revision petition was devoid of merit, and the conviction and sentence passed by the courts below were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Where issuance and signature on the cheque are admitted, the drawer must rebut the statutory presumption by a probable defence on the preponderance of probabilities; a security cheque can still attract liability under Section 138 when it represents an enforceable obligation and the revisional court will not disturb concurrent findings absent patent illegality or miscarriage of justice.

---