As per case facts, the complainant alleged that multiple cheques were issued by the petitioner towards a legally enforceable liability arising from a property sale and rent assignment, which were ... subsequently dishonored. The petitioner contended that these were merely security cheques for cash loans that were repaid, and the underlying documents were not intended to be acted upon. This defense was consistently denied by the complainant and found unconvincing due to the petitioner's admissions regarding document execution, acknowledgment of liability, and prior settlement conduct in connected cases. The question arose whether the cheques were issued for a legally enforceable debt or liability, and if the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumption under the NI Act. Finally, the High Court determined that the petitioner failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act. The court upheld the conviction, finding no perversity or illegality in the lower courts' findings, but modified the sentence by restoring the Trial Court's original order.