Cheque dishonour presumptions upheld where accused failed to rebut proof of loan, notice, and insufficiency of funds.

Proof of the loan transaction, cheque issuance, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of statutory notice attracted the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in favour of the cheque holder. The accused failed to rebut those presumptions with reliable evidence, and the defence materials did not displace the complainant's version. As no perversity or illegality was shown in the concurrent findings, the Kerala High Court upheld the conviction under Section 138 and declined to interfere with the sentence, which had already been reduced by the appellate court to the minimum possible term.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence imposed required interference in revision.

Analysis: The complainant's evidence proved the loan transaction, issuance of the cheque, dishonour for insufficiency of funds, and service of notice. Once the foundational facts were established, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operated in favour of the holder of the cheque. The accused did not rebut those presumptions by reliable evidence. The materials relied on by the defence did not displace the complainant's version, and no perversity or illegality was shown in the concurrent findings. The appellate court had also already reduced the substantive sentence to the minimum possible term.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was upheld and the sentence was not interfered with.

---