Cheque dishonour presumption under the Negotiable Instruments Act was not rebutted; revisional interference was unwarranted.

Once execution of a cheque and its dishonour were proved, the statutory presumption of debt and liability under the Negotiable Instruments Act operated in favour of the complainant. The defence that the cheque was not presented, or that procedural gaps such as absence of a deposit slip or reverse-side endorsement weakened the case, was rejected because bank officials' evidence and the return memo established presentation and dishonour for signature mismatch. The presumption was not rebutted on the preponderance of probabilities, and the concurrent findings below were not shown to suffer from perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality. Revisional interference with the conviction was therefore not warranted.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Negotiable Instruments Act was liable to be interfered with in revisional jurisdiction on the ground that the cheque was not proved to have been presented and the statutory presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: The cheque, its dishonour, the service of demand notice, and the supporting bank evidence were found to establish the foundational facts for the offence. The presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act operated once execution and dishonour were proved. The defence plea that the cheque was never presented, or that procedural gaps such as absence of a deposit slip or reverse-side endorsement undermined the prosecution, was not accepted because the bank officials' evidence and the return memo showed presentation and dishonour for signature mismatch. The standard to rebut the presumption remained preponderance of probabilities, and no material of that standard was found to displace the complainant's case. The concurrent factual findings of the courts below were not shown to be perverse or vitiated by any jurisdictional error.

Conclusion: Interference with the conviction was not warranted and the challenge to the concurrent findings failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the execution of a cheque and its dishonour are proved, the statutory presumption of debt and liability applies, rebuttable only on a preponderance of probabilities, and revisional interference with concurrent findings is permissible only where perversity, jurisdictional error, or manifest illegality is shown.

---