As per case facts, the complainant filed a complaint against the accused, an insurance agent, alleging that the agent reduced the insurance value of his vehicle, leading to a loss. ... The accused issued a compensation cheque, which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. Despite a legal notice, the accused failed to repay, leading to the complaint. The Trial Court convicted the accused under Section 138 of the NI Act, which was upheld by the Appellate Court. The accused then filed a revision petition, challenging the lower courts' appreciation of evidence, claiming improper notice, no liability as an agent, lack of consideration for the cheque, and that the cheque was snatched. The question arose whether the lower courts correctly applied the presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act regarding debt/liability, and whether the revisional court could re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact. Finally, the High Court, acting as a revisional court, relying on Supreme Court precedents, affirmed that its scope is limited to patent defects or errors of law, not re-appreciation of evidence unless perverse. It found no infirmity in the lower courts' findings that the accused failed to rebut the presumption of debt/liability, especially after admitting his signature and agreeing to compensation. The accused's defenses, including the cheque being snatched, were rejected. The service of notice and cheque dishonour were duly proved. The revision petition was dismissed, and the sentence confirmed.