Section 138 cheque dishonour presumptions upheld where security-cheque defence failed to rebut legally enforceable liability.

Concurrent convictions under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were held not to merit revisional interference because the revisional court cannot reassess evidence like an appellate court unless there is perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice. The cheque had been issued, dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and statutory notice had been served without payment, satisfying the offence ingredients. The defence that the cheque was only a security cheque and that the liability had been repaid failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, since admission of issuance and signature triggered those presumptions and the repayment document did not refer to the cheque in question. Liability under Section 138 was therefore established.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision; (ii) Whether the defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the liability had already been repaid was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Issue (i): Whether the concurrent findings of conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revisional court's jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and does not permit reassessment of evidence as in an appeal unless there is a glaring illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice. The evidence showed that the cheque was issued, dishonoured for insufficient funds, and statutory notice was served but payment was not made. The trial court and appellate court had appreciated the material on record and reached concurrent findings that satisfied the ingredients of the offence.

Conclusion: The concurrent conviction did not warrant interference in revision and was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the defence that the cheque was issued as security and that the liability had already been repaid was sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Once issuance of the cheque and the signature thereon were admitted, the statutory presumptions operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused was required to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities by showing a probable defence. The alleged repayment document did not mention the cheque in question, and the defence evidence was not found sufficiently reliable to dislodge the presumption of legally enforceable liability. A cheque described as a security cheque is not outside the scope of Section 138 where it is presented towards an unpaid obligation.

Conclusion: The defence failed to rebut the presumptions, and liability under Section 138 was established.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed, and the conviction and sentence under the Negotiable Instruments Act were maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission of issuance and signature on the cheque activates the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139, which can be displaced only by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities; a revisional court will not interfere with concurrent findings absent perversity or miscarriage of justice.

---