Cheque execution presumptions require cogent rebuttal, while revisional review cannot replace concurrent factual findings through fresh evidence assessment.

Admission of cheque execution triggers statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of liability, which the accused must displace with cogent evidence. A security-cheque defence unsupported by contemporaneous material, a belated demand for return of the cheque, failure to respond to the demand notice, and unproven allegations of the complainant's financial incapacity do not rebut those presumptions. The notes further state that revisional jurisdiction is supervisory, not appellate: concurrent factual findings may be disturbed only for perversity, gross error, reliance on irrelevant or no material, non-consideration of relevant material, or arbitrary discretion. Reappreciation of evidence without such defects exceeds revisional limits.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution of the dishonoured cheque and disproved the legally enforceable debt; (ii) Whether the High Court could, in revisional jurisdiction, reverse concurrent findings of conviction by reappreciating the evidence.

Issue (i): Whether the accused rebutted the statutory presumptions arising from admitted execution of the dishonoured cheque and disproved the legally enforceable debt.

Analysis: Admission of the signature on the cheque attracted the mandatory presumptions of consideration and discharge of debt or liability. The complainant established compliance with the requirements for dishonour of cheque, including timely presentation, demand notice and non-payment. The defence that a blank cheque had been furnished as security for a different loan lacked supporting contemporaneous evidence; the later notice demanding return of the cheque was treated as an afterthought. The complainant's evidence concerning the loan and financial assistance received from others remained credible after cross-examination. Financial incapacity was not established merely from the complainant's monthly income, particularly when evidence showed other investments and financial assistance. The accused had neither replied to the demand notice raising that defence nor adduced cogent material to displace the presumptions.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the presumptions or disprove the legally enforceable debt; the conviction for dishonour of cheque was justified.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court could, in revisional jurisdiction, reverse concurrent findings of conviction by reappreciating the evidence.

Analysis: Revisional jurisdiction is supervisory and is not equivalent to appellate jurisdiction. Concurrent factual findings may be disturbed only where they are perverse, grossly erroneous, based on irrelevant or no material, or result from non-consideration of relevant material or arbitrary exercise of discretion. The High Court substituted its own assessment of the evidence without identifying any such defect in the concurrent findings.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction in reversing the concurrent conviction.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent findings sustaining criminal liability for dishonour of cheque stand restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Once execution of a cheque is admitted, the statutory presumptions of consideration and discharge of liability operate unless displaced by cogent evidence; a revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings absent perversity or a jurisdictional defect.

---