Cheque dishonour conviction sustained as statutory presumptions remained unrebutted and revisional interference was barred absent illegality.

Presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the cheque holder where issuance and signatures were admitted, dishonour for insufficiency of funds and service of statutory notice were proved, and the accused failed to rebut the case on a preponderance of probabilities. A cheque described as security remained enforceable when the underlying liability was not discharged. Revisional interference under Section 397 CrPC was unavailable because the court could not re-appreciate evidence absent glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice, so the conviction and sentence under Section 138 were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The accused did not dispute issuance of the cheques or his signatures, and the defence that the cheques were issued as security remained unsupported by cogent evidence. The complainant proved supply of material, dishonour of the cheques for insufficiency of funds, and service of statutory notice. In these circumstances, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the holder of the cheques, and the accused failed to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. The cheque described as a security cheque was held to remain enforceable when the underlying liability was not discharged. The revisional court also reiterated that its jurisdiction under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited and does not permit re-appreciation of evidence in the absence of glaring illegality or miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion: Interference was not warranted, and the conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were sustained.

---