What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction under Section 138 NI Act beyond reasonable doubt? What is the effect of Section 139 NI Act and Section 251 Cr.P.C. in drawing a presumption in favor of the complainant? What are the circumstances under which a revisional court may interfere with concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts in NI Act cases?

Key Points: - The court emphasizes meeting the test required to sustain a conviction beyond any reasonable doubt (!) - The court draws a presumption in favor of the complainant under Section 139 NI Act based on service of legal notice and dishonor of the cheque (!) - The appellate court’s and trial court’s concurrent findings on credibility and evidence are upheld; revisional court cannot reappreciate evidence to reverse unless there is gross miscarriage of justice (!) (!) - The petitioner’s arguments about repayment, security cheque, and contradictions in defence were found unpersuasive, with unrebutted prosecution evidence preferred (!) (!) (!) - The court affirmed conviction under Section 138 NI Act and dismissed the petition; no costs awarded (!) (!)

What is the standard of proof required to sustain a conviction under Section 138 NI Act beyond reasonable doubt?

What is the effect of Section 139 NI Act and Section 251 Cr.P.C. in drawing a presumption in favor of the complainant?

What are the circumstances under which a revisional court may interfere with concurrent findings of trial and appellate courts in NI Act cases?