Security cheque liability under Section 138 survives where subsisting debt is proved and statutory presumptions remain unrebutted.

In revision, the HC will not disturb concurrent findings of conviction and sentence unless they are perverse, grossly erroneous, or jurisdictionally flawed, and no such interference was justified here. A cheque issued as security still attracts Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 if a legally enforceable liability exists on the date of presentation; once issuance and signature are admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 arise and are not rebutted by a bare Section 313 CrPC statement without defence evidence. Dishonour for insufficient funds, valid service of notice, and subsisting liability were proved, so the conviction and sentence were upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the High Court, in revision, could interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; (ii) whether a cheque issued as security, when liability subsisted, attracted liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the statutory presumptions were rebutted; (iii) whether dishonour, service of notice, and the amount claimed were proved so as to sustain the conviction.

Issue (i): whether the High Court, in revision, could interfere with concurrent findings of conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is narrow and is meant to correct patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity. It is not an appellate jurisdiction and does not permit a fresh reappreciation of evidence merely because another view is possible. Where the trial court and appellate court have returned concurrent findings on the basis of evidence, interference is justified only when the findings are perverse, grossly erroneous, or unsupported by material on record.

Conclusion: The challenge to the concurrent findings did not warrant interference in revision.

Issue (ii): whether a cheque issued as security, when liability subsisted, attracted liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and whether the statutory presumptions were rebutted.

Analysis: Once the drawer admitted issuance of the cheque and his signature, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut the presumptions by a probable defence. A mere statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without defence evidence, was insufficient to rebut the presumption. A cheque described as security does not escape Section 138 if on the date of presentation a legally enforceable liability existed, and a cheque may also be issued towards partial discharge of an outstanding liability.

Conclusion: The security-cheque defence failed, and the statutory presumptions remained unrebutted.

Issue (iii): whether dishonour, service of notice, and the amount claimed were proved so as to sustain the conviction.

Analysis: The bank memo showing dishonour for insufficient funds attracted the presumption under Section 146 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which was not displaced by any contrary evidence. The notice was shown to have been issued to the correct address and duly served. The account material reflected subsisting liability, and the accused led no convincing evidence to establish payment or a lesser liability. The ingredients of Section 138 were therefore established beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: Dishonour, notice, and liability were duly proved, and the conviction was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were upheld, and no ground for revisional interference was made out.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision, concurrent findings based on evidence will not be disturbed absent perversity or jurisdictional error, and a cheque issued as security remains enforceable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 if a legally recoverable liability exists on the date of presentation, subject to the drawer's failure to rebut the statutory presumptions.

---