Cheque dishonour presumptions and limited revisional review sustain conviction where signature and issuance are admitted.

Once issuance and signature on the cheque are admitted, the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act operate until rebutted by defence evidence. A bare denial under Section 313 CrPC or a plea that the cheque was issued as security does not displace that presumption without supporting proof. In revision, the High Court's interference is confined to patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and concurrent findings are not reappreciated absent such defects. The compensation awarded was also treated as within permissible limits and not excessive on the facts noted in the text.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 deserved interference in revision, and whether the compensation awarded was excessive.

Analysis: The accused admitted issuance and signature on the cheque, dishonour for insufficient funds, and receipt of statutory notice, but led no evidence to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Mere denial in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and the plea that the cheque was issued as security, did not displace the statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt. The revisional court's scope was limited to correcting patent illegality, jurisdictional error, or perversity, and there was no basis to reappreciate evidence or upset the concurrent findings. The compensation awarded was also found to be within permissible limits and not excessive in the circumstances.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence including compensation were upheld, and no revisional interference was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: In revision against concurrent findings in a cheque dishonour case, the High Court will not reappreciate evidence unless there is perversity or patent illegality, and once issuance and signature on the cheque are admitted, the statutory presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 operate until rebutted by defence evidence.

---