In Brief
An accused was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a cheque that bounced due to insufficient funds. The trial court and appellate court upheld the conviction, finding the accused's defence of the cheque being stolen unbelievable. The High Court set aside the conviction in revision, claiming doubt about the debt's existence. The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by re-appreciating evidence in violation of its supervisory revisional jurisdiction. Since the accused led no evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of debt under Section 139, and his theft defence was rejected by both courts below, the conviction was properly recorded. The appeal was allowed and the conviction restored.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.