Cheque dishonour presumptions prevail where repayment remains unproved, sustaining liability for an account-closed cheque issued against matured debt.

Admission of a signed cheque, its dishonour due to account closure, and receipt of statutory notice triggers presumptions that it was issued for consideration and a legally enforceable debt, placing the burden on the accused to establish a probable defence. An unsupported repayment plea does not rebut those presumptions. A security cheque remains actionable where liability has matured, and voluntary delivery of a signed blank cheque permits completion of particulars absent cogent rebuttal. A cash loan violating tax restrictions may attract penalty but does not invalidate the debt. Revision cannot reassess concurrent factual findings without perversity, jurisdictional error, or legal untenability; the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction and sentence for dishonour of cheque under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 warranted interference in criminal revision.

Analysis: The accused admitted the loan, issuance of the signed cheque, dishonour with the endorsement "account closed", and receipt of the statutory notice. These admissions corroborated the complainant's evidence. Admission of execution of the cheque attracted the presumptions under Sections 118(a) and 139 that it was issued for consideration and towards a legally enforceable liability; the burden lay on the accused to establish a probable defence. The plea of repayment was unsupported by evidence, and the agreement and defence evidence did not prove repayment. A cheque issued as security remains enforceable under Section 138 where a subsisting liability has matured, and voluntary delivery of a signed blank cheque authorises the payee to fill its particulars absent cogent rebuttal. A cash loan in contravention of Section 269SS of the Income-tax Act, 1961 attracts statutory penalty but does not render the underlying debt void or unenforceable. Although the bank return memo lacked a seal and signature, dishonour due to account closure stood proved by the accused's admission; such dishonour falls within Section 138. The variation regarding the repayment period did not affect the liability, as presentation occurred after expiry of one year. The three-month imprisonment and compensation were not excessive. In revision, concurrent factual findings cannot be reappreciated unless shown to be perverse, jurisdictionally erroneous, or legally untenable; no such defect was established.

Conclusion: The conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and the sentence of three months' simple imprisonment with compensation were sustained.

---