A probable defence supported by contemporaneous evidence rebuts Sections 118 and 139 presumptions.

The complainant alleged that the accused borrowed ₹2,00,000 and issued a cheque dated 3 June 2017 towards repayment. The cheque was dishonoured for insufficient funds, and the accused did not pay after receiving statutory notice

The accused denied borrowing from the complainant and claimed that he had given the cheque as security to Renukayya Shastri for a separate loan, which he repaid.

He relied on a stop-payment request dated 22 September 2016 and the bank’s later confirmation that the request had been recorded

The trial court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and imposed a fine of ₹2,75,000; the appellate court affirmed the conviction

The accused challenged both decisions in revision.

1. Whether the concurrent judgments of conviction and sentence suffered from illegality or perversity warranting interference in revision

2. Whether the accused raised a probable defence sufficient to rebut the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act

Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act raise rebuttable presumptions concerning consideration and the discharge of a debt or liability by a cheque; the accused may rebut them by raising a probable defence.

Where the accused specifically disputes the complainant’s financial capacity, the complainant must place sufficient material on record to establish that capacity

In revision, concurrent factual findings are ordinarily not disturbed, but interference is warranted where findings are perverse, rest on misreading or non-consideration of material evidence, or cause a miscarriage of justice

The offence alleged was under Section 138 of the Act

The complainant testified that he earned ₹10,000 per month as a driver, but did not establish the source of the ₹2,00,000 allegedly lent; his assertion that he had agricultural income and kept the money at home was unsupported by documents

Given the specific challenge to his financial capacity, the Court held that the complainant had not supplied sufficient evidence on that material point

The accused’s contemporaneous stop-payment request, made before the cheque was presented, supported his account that the cheque had been issued to another person and helped raise a probable defence

The Court also held that the accused’s failure to examine Renukayya Shastri did not, by itself, defeat that defence where other circumstances and documentary evidence supported it

The lower courts’ reliance on the presumptions without properly assessing this evidence rendered their findings perverse and justified revision

The accused was acquitted of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act; his bail and surety bonds were discharged, and any amount deposited was ordered to be released to him.