Legally enforceable debt is essential for Section 138 liability; rebuttal evidence on the creditor's identity can defeat conviction.

For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the cheque must be proved to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and that foundational fact cannot rest on the statutory presumption alone. Where the complainant's own evidence creates a reasonable doubt about the identity of the creditor concern and the subsistence of liability, the presumption is rebutted and the burden is not discharged. The text also notes that revisional interference is justified where lower courts ignore this core requirement.

---

---

Issues: Whether the concurrent conviction under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 could be sustained when the material on record did not establish that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and whether interference in revision was warranted.

Analysis: The complaint evidence showed a mismatch between the concern reflected in the cash credit memo and the complainant's own concern named on the cheque and registration documents. The cash memo was issued in the name of one jewellery concern, while the cheque was issued in favour of another, and the registration details also did not tally. The presumption arising from issuance of the cheque is rebuttable, and once the complainant's own evidence created a reasonable doubt about identity of the creditor concern and the subsistence of liability, the burden could not be treated as discharged. The existence of a legally enforceable debt is a foundational jurisdictional fact for an offence under Section 138, and the revisional court was entitled to interfere where the lower courts had ignored this aspect.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained, and interference in revision was justified. The finding was in favour of the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: For an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, the cheque must be shown to have been issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, and where the complainant's own evidence creates a reasonable doubt on that foundational fact, the presumption stands rebutted and conviction cannot be sustained.

---