Statutory presumptions on admitted cheque execution shift the burden to the accused, limiting revisional interference in cheque dishonour cases.

Admitted execution of a cheque and related agreement triggers the statutory presumptions of consideration and legally enforceable liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act, placing the burden on the accused to rebut them on a preponderance of probabilities. Revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Criminal Procedure is confined to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and does not extend to a full reappreciation of evidence. Where the defence evidence is found untrustworthy and insufficient to show that the cheque was only a security instrument or that the agreement was executed under threat, the statutory presumptions remain unrebutted and the complainant need not separately prove financial capacity.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising on admitted execution of the cheque and agreement, and whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 called for interference in revision.

Analysis: The revisional jurisdiction under Sections 397 and 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is limited to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and does not permit reappreciation of evidence as in appeal. Once the accused admitted his signatures on the cheque and agreement, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder of the cheque, including the existence of debt or liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut the presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities. The defence evidence was found untrustworthy and insufficient, and the accused failed to establish that the cheque was only a security instrument or that the agreement was executed under threat. In these circumstances, the complainant was not required to independently prove financial capacity merely because the statutory presumption had not been displaced.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumptions, and the concurrent conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admitted execution of the cheque raises a rebuttable presumption of consideration and legally enforceable liability, which the accused must displace by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities; absent such rebuttal, concurrent findings of conviction do not warrant revisional interference.

---