Failure to rebut statutory presumption or dispute signature during trial precludes challenging conviction in revisional jurisdiction.

The applicant (original accused) challenged a judgment of the Special Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad, which upheld his conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (N.I.) Act.

The trial court had sentenced the applicant to one year of simple imprisonment and ordered compensation of ₹2,80,000.

The applicant contended that he did not know the complainant, had not borrowed the money, and that the signature on the disputed cheque was forged.

He further alleged that the complainant had obtained blank cheques from his brother and misused them.

During the revision, the applicant relied on a private handwriting expert report regarding a separate receipt to dispute his signature.

1. Whether the applicant successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act regarding the existence of a legally enforceable debt.

2. Whether the applicant could raise the defense of a forged signature at the revisional stage when no such application for expert verification was moved during the trial.

Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, regarding the dishonor of cheques for insufficiency of funds.

Statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the N.I. Act, which mandate that unless the contrary is proved, a holder of a cheque is presumed to have received it for the discharge of a debt or liability.

The evidentiary standard of "preponderance of probabilities" for the accused's defense.

The Supreme Court precedent in Tedhi Singh v. Narayan Dass Mahant (2022) 6 SCC 735, which establishes that failure to reply to a statutory notice limits the accused's ability to later challenge the complainant's financial capacity or raise specific defenses.

The court found that the applicant failed to respond to the statutory legal notice despite it being duly served.

Applying Tedhi Singh, the court noted that this failure weakened the applicant's later defenses regarding the complainant's financial capacity.

Regarding the forgery claim, the court observed that the applicant never applied for an FSL or handwriting expert examination during the trial.

The handwriting expert report submitted during the revision was deemed irrelevant because it examined a signature on a receipt, not the signature on the disputed cheque itself.

Conversely, the complainant provided oral testimony from witnesses and documentary evidence, including Income Tax returns and ledger accounts, specifically showing a payment entry of ₹1,20,000.

The court concluded that the applicant failed to meet the "preponderance of probabilities" standard required to shift the onus back to the complainant.

The court held that there was no jurisdictional error or palpable illegality in the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

The applicant was directed to repay the entire cheque amount within four weeks and surrender to the jail authorities to undergo the sentence.

The suspension of the sentence was revoked, and the complainant was granted liberty to withdraw the amounts already deposited in court.