Cheque dishonour presumptions remain intact absent credible rebuttal; revisional interference is limited to legality and propriety.

In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, admission of cheque execution triggers presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. Those presumptions can be displaced only by credible evidence showing, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the defence version is more likely. In revision, the court's role is limited to testing legality, correctness, and propriety, not reappreciating evidence as a matter of course. On the stated facts, the defence evidence was found unreliable and insufficient, so the presumptions remained unrebutted and revisional interference was not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in revision, interference was warranted with concurrent findings sustaining conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and whether the accused had rebutted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The revisional court's role is confined to examining the correctness, legality, and propriety of the impugned order and does not extend to reappreciation of evidence as a matter of course. Once execution of the cheque was admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the complainant that the cheque was issued for consideration and in discharge of a legally enforceable liability. The burden then shifted to the accused to rebut those presumptions on a preponderance of probabilities by leading credible evidence. The defence that the cheques were only advance cheques, that the transactions were not on credit basis, and that a communication had been sent to cancel the purchase order and return the cheques was not established by reliable evidence. The account records were found to be inadequately maintained, no supporting financial material was produced, and the alleged recipient of the cancellation communication was not examined. The supporting bank witness also did not assist the defence version.

Conclusion: The presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were not rebutted, the conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was maintained, and no revisional interference was called for.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, admission of cheque execution raises statutory presumptions in favour of the holder, and the accused must rebut them by credible evidence on a preponderance of probabilities before revisional interference can be justified.

---