As per case facts, the Petitioner was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for dishonour of a cheque issued for a legally enforceable debt. The cheque bounced, ... and payment was not made after a legal notice. Both trial and appellate courts affirmed the conviction. The High Court had imposed a condition for sentence suspension, which the Petitioner failed to comply with. The question arose whether the lower courts correctly applied statutory presumptions regarding the cheque's issuance for a lawful liability and if the Petitioner's defence (cheque as security) successfully rebutted it. Finally, the High Court upheld the conviction, finding all ingredients of Section 138 were met. It noted that the Petitioner failed to produce evidence to rebut the presumptions, reaffirming that a 'security cheque' can attract Section 138 if there's an underlying debt. No errors were found within revisional jurisdiction.