As per case facts, the complainant advanced a loan to the accused for his transport business. The accused issued a post-dated cheque which was dishonoured due to insufficient funds. A ... demand notice was served, but the accused failed to pay, leading to a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act. Both the Trial and Appellate Courts upheld the conviction. The accused filed a revision petition arguing that the complainant failed to prove a legally enforceable debt, citing discrepancies in the complaint, non-examination of a witness, and lack of income tax returns to show financial capacity. The question arose whether minor discrepancies or lack of specific details negate the presumption of debt under the NI Act and if the complainant must initially prove financial capacity. Finally, the Supreme Court clarified that once the cheque's issuance and signature are admitted, presumptions of debt and consideration arise, shifting the burden to the accused to rebut with evidence. Minor discrepancies, non-examination of witnesses, or non-disclosure in IT returns do not automatically invalidate the complainant's case. The High Court's revisional jurisdiction is limited to patent errors of law or jurisdiction, not re-appreciation of facts. The penal provisions are deterrent, and default imprisonment for compensation is valid.