Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 – s. 139 – Presumption in favour of holder – Rebuttal of – Dishonour of cheque due to insufficiency of funds – Conviction by the trial court – High Court set aside the conviction holding that the accused was able to raise a doubt regarding existence of debt or liability of the accused – On appeal, held: High Court erred in setting aside the order of conviction in exercise of revisional jurisdiction – No sufficient ground was mentioned – There was no valid basis for the High Court to hold that the accused has been successful in creating doubt in the mind of the Court with regard to the existence of the debt or liability – Trial court as well as the appellate court found that cheque contained the signatures of the accused and it was given to the appellant to present in the Bank – Presumption u/s. 139 was rightly raised which was not rebutted by the accused – No evidence was led by the accused – Accused even did not come in the witness box to support his case – Further, the defence taken in the reply to the notice that cheque was stolen was rejected by the courts below – Thus, the judgment of the High Court set aside and that of trial court as affirmed by appellate court restored.