Dishonoured cheque liability under the NI Act upheld where statutory presumptions were not rebutted and revision found no interference ground.

A dishonoured cheque issued in a loan transaction attracted Section 138 NI Act because the loan, cheque issuance, and signatures were admitted, and the accused failed to rebut the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 by showing a probable defence or absence of legally enforceable liability. The cheque being described as security did not avoid liability where the underlying debt subsisted and the cheque was presented on maturity. Revisional interference was also declined because revisional jurisdiction is confined to correcting illegality, jurisdictional error, or gross miscarriage of justice, and no such defect was shown in the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the dishonoured cheque issued in the course of a loan transaction attracted criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139. (ii) Whether the High Court should interfere in revision with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

Issue (i): Whether the dishonoured cheque issued in the course of a loan transaction attracted criminal liability under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139.

Analysis: The loan transaction and issuance of the cheque were admitted, as were the signatures on the cheque. The accused also admitted borrowing the amount, but failed to establish a probable defence showing absence of legally enforceable liability. The cheque, even if asserted to be a security cheque, did not cease to attract Section 138 where the underlying debt subsisted and the cheque matured for presentation. In the absence of a successful rebuttal, the presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 operated in favour of the complainant.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 was upheld, and the finding was against the accused.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court should interfere in revision with the concurrent findings of conviction and sentence.

Analysis: Revisional power is limited to correcting jurisdictional error, illegality, or gross miscarriage of justice, and does not permit routine reappreciation of evidence where the trial court and appellate court have recorded concurrent findings based on proper appreciation of the record. No material irregularity or failure of justice was shown to justify interference.

Conclusion: No revisional interference was warranted, and the concurrent findings were sustained.

Final Conclusion: The revision failed on merits, the conviction and sentence were affirmed, and the petitioner remained liable to undergo the sentence imposed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A dishonoured cheque issued in a loan transaction attracts Section 138 where the drawer fails to rebut the statutory presumptions by raising a probable defence, and a revisional court will not interfere with concurrent findings absent illegality, perversity, or miscarriage of justice.

---