As per case facts...the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and Sessions Court convicted the accused for dishonouring a cheque issued in discharge of a friendly loan. The High Court, ... in revisional jurisdiction, set aside the conviction ex-parte, concluding that the accused's defense of a signed blank cheque being issued for an unrelated loan purpose rebutted the statutory presumption. The question arose...whether the High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, was justified in setting aside concurrent factual findings, and whether the presumption of legally enforceable debt under the NI Act is negated by the complainant's lack of immediate financial capacity or a breach of the Income Tax Act. Finally...the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and restoring the conviction. It affirmed that the statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt arises upon admitting the signature and must be rebutted by the accused with evidence. The Court rejected the notion that a cash transaction over a certain limit or lack of immediate financial proof by the complainant automatically negates the debt