Presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act sustained conviction where cheque liability, security-cheque plea, and notice objections failed.

Admission of borrowing, cheque issuance and signature brought the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act into operation, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut liability by a probable defence; mere denial under Section 313 CrPC without defence evidence or proof of repayment was insufficient. The plea that the cheque was only a security cheque failed because a security cheque can attract Section 138 once liability has matured. Dishonour for "account closed" and deemed service of notice were treated as sufficient. The conviction, sentence and compensation were upheld, and no revisional interference was warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was liable to be interfered with in revision on the grounds that the complainant did not prove the loan and source of funds, the cheque was only a security cheque, the notice was not duly served, and the sentence and compensation were excessive.

Analysis: The accused admitted borrowing the loan amount and did not dispute issuance of the cheque or his signature thereon. In such circumstances, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 arose in favour of the holder of the cheque, and the burden shifted to the accused to rebut them by a probable defence. Mere denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without defence evidence or material showing repayment, was insufficient to displace the presumption. The plea that the cheque was issued as security did not avail the accused because a security cheque, where liability has matured, can attract Section 138. The dishonour memo showing 'account closed' was sufficient to attract the statutory consequence, and the return of notice was treated as deemed service, there being no proof that the accused was not responsible for non-service.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were upheld, and no ground for revisional interference was made out.

---