(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Sections 118(a) and 139 - Presumption of liability - Once the issuance of a cheque and the signatures thereon are admitted, a presumption arises that the cheque was issued for consideration to discharge a legally enforceable debt or liability - The burden of proof shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption by leading evidence; mere denial in a statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is insufficient to rebut such presumption. (Paras 19, 21, 27)

(B) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 - Security cheque - A cheque issued as security is not a worthless piece of paper and attracts liability under Section 138 if, on the date of the cheque, a debt or liability exists or is legally recoverable. (Paras 28, 29, 30)

(C) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Sections 397 and 401 - Scope of revisional jurisdiction - A revisional court is not an appellate court and cannot re-appreciate evidence or upset concurrent factual findings in the absence of perversity, jurisdictional error, or a patent defect of law. (Paras 13, 14, 15)

(D) Criminal Liability - Payment after cause of action - Once the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is committed, any payment made subsequent to the expiry of the notice period (i.e., after the cause of action has arisen) does not absolve the accused of criminal liability, although it may be considered during sentencing. (Para 24) (E) Indian Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 59 and 60 - Appropriation of payments - Where a debtor owes several distinct debts and makes a payment without specifying which debt it should discharge, the creditor has the discretion to appropriate the amount toward any lawful debt actually due and payable. (Paras 25, 26) (F) Limitation - Section 142(b) of the Negotiable Instruments Act - In calculating the one-month limitation period for filing a complaint, the date on which the legal notice was served upon the drawer must be excluded. (Paras 34, 35, 36) (G) Sentencing - Compensation and default sentence - Courts can impose a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of compensation awarded under Section 357(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure to ensure the delivery of justice to the victim. (Paras 42, 43)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was convicted by the trial court and subsequently by the appellate court for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after a cheque for Rs. 1,76,000/- issued for the purchase of gold ornaments was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The petitioner filed a revision petition contending that the complaint was barred by limitation, the cheque was issued as security without consideration, and the amount had been paid during the pendency of the complaint.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the petitioner admitted the signature on the cheque, triggering the statutory presumptions under Sections 118 and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It was held that the security nature of the cheque did not exempt the petitioner from liability as a debt existed. The payment made during the pendency of the case did not wipe out the offence. The complaint was found to be within the limitation period as the date of service of notice was excluded. The sentence of one year and the compensation awarded were deemed appropriate.

Issues: Whether the revisional court can interfere with concurrent findings of conviction; whether a security cheque attracts liability under Section 138; whether payment made after the cause of action arises absolves the accused; and whether the complaint was barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: Revisional jurisdiction is limited to correcting legal perversities and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence. The statutory presumption of a legally enforceable debt applies when signatures are admitted, and security cheques are actionable if a debt exists. Limitation is calculated by excluding the date of notice service, and posterior payments do not negate a completed criminal offence.

Result: Revision fails and is dismissed.