In Brief
A complainant loaned Rs. 2,00,000 to the accused, who issued a post-dated cheque for repayment but it bounced due to insufficient funds. The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 after finding the cheque contained the accused's signatures and drawing presumption under Section 139 (which the accused failed to rebut). The appellate court upheld the conviction, but the High Court set it aside, finding doubt about the debt's existence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its revisional jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence without finding perversity. Since the cheque's execution was proved and the accused's defence (that it was stolen) was rejected by lower courts without rebuttal by superior courts, the presumption was validly raised and not rebutted. The Supreme Court restored the trial court's conviction.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.