Statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act remained unrebutted, so conviction for cheque dishonour was restored.

Where the cheque bore the accused's admitted signature, was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the statutory notice went unanswered, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant and were not rebutted; conviction under Section 138 was therefore sustainable. The Supreme Court also held that the High Court erred in overturning concurrent findings by conjectural reappreciation of evidence and in ignoring material supporting the prosecution case; the acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood unrebutted so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court by reappreciating the evidence and acquitting the accused.

Issue (i): Whether the presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 stood unrebutted so as to sustain conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque bore the admitted signatures of the accused, the cheque was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, and the statutory notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 remained unanswered. The complainant's testimony that the cheque was issued towards repayment of a loan was not shaken in cross-examination. The defence that the cheque was a blank cheque or that the particulars were filled by someone else was raised belatedly and was not proved. In these circumstances, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant and were not displaced by the accused.

Conclusion: The presumption remained unrebutted and the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was sustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was justified in upsetting the concurrent findings of the trial court and appellate court by reappreciating the evidence and acquitting the accused.

Analysis: The evidence showed advancement of money through valid sources, including cheques, and the complainant explained the transaction consistently. The High Court's view that the case lacked corroboration and that the complainant's omission to prove money-lending business was decisive was held to be based on conjectures and surmises. The High Court had substituted its own factual findings for concurrent findings without a valid basis and ignored material evidence supporting the prosecution case.

Conclusion: The High Court's acquittal was unsustainable and the concurrent conviction recorded by the courts below was restored.

Final Conclusion: The complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was held proved, the acquittal was set aside, and the conviction and sentence were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the cheque is admitted, dishonour is proved, notice remains unanswered, and the accused fails to rebut the statutory presumptions, conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 must follow, and an appellate court cannot displace concurrent findings by conjectural reassessment of evidence.

---