Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881:s.138 and 139 – Dishonour of cheque for insufficient funds– Conviction by trial Court as well as appellate court – In Revision,High Court reversing the concurrent factual finding of courts below and acquitting the accused holding that heavy burden was on the complainant to prove that blank cheque was given to him towards repayment of the loan which he had advanced to the accused – On appeal, Supreme Court held: Section 139 introduces an exception to the general rule as to the burden of proof and shifts the onus on the accused i.e drawer of cheque – Section 139 is a presumption of law as distinguished from presumption of facts – Presumption contemplated u/s. 139 is rebuttable presumption – A reading of ss.20, 87 and 139 makes it amply clear that a person who signs the cheque and makes it over to the payee remains liable unless he adduces evidence to rebut the presumption – It was not the case of the accused that the cheque was signed under threat or coercion or that the cheque was stolen – Existence of fiduciary relationship between the payee of the cheque and its drawer, would not disentitle the payee to the benefit of presumption u/s. 139 in the absence of evidence of exercise of undue influence or coercion – High Court ought not have acquitted the accused – Conviction affirmed –Evidence – Presumption.s.138 – Object of – Held: Object of s.138 is to infuse credibility to negotiable instruments and to encourage and promote their use.Chapter XVII – Object of – Held: The object of Chapter XVII is both punitive as also compensatory and restitutive – It provides a single forum and single proceeding for enforcement of criminal liability and for enforcement of civil liability. Evidence:Presumption – Presumption of innocence is a human right –However, the guilt may be established by recourse to presumption is in law and presumptions in facts unless the accused adduces evidence showing the reasonable possibility of non-existence of presumed facts.Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Revisional jurisdiction – Scope of – Held: In exercise of Revisional jurisdiction, High Court cannot upset concurrent factual findings, in absence of perversity – It is not for the Revisional Court to re-analyse and re-interpret the evidence on record.Constitution of India:Art. 136 – Jurisdiction under – Exercise of – In appeal against acquittal – Held: If two views are possible, the Court in exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.136 would ordinarily not interfere with judgment of acquittal.Precedent:A judgement is a precedent for the issue which is raised and decided – What is binding on all courts is what Supreme Court says u/Art. 141 of the Constitution and not what it does u/Art. 142 –Constitution of India – Arts. 141 and 142.Allowing the appeals, the Court