The document indicates that when a complaint is filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the presumption of a legally enforceable debt or liability arises in favor of the complainant once the issuance of the cheque and the signature are admitted by the accused. However, this presumption is rebuttable, meaning the accused has the opportunity to lead evidence to challenge or disprove the existence of such debt or liability, including the complainant's financial capacity to lend the amount.

Specifically, the accused can demonstrate that the entire amount was paid or that the cheque was issued for a different purpose, such as security, and not in discharge of a debt. If the accused contests the claim, the burden shifts back to the complainant to prove the existence of the debt, which may include establishing the complainant’s financial capacity to lend the amount in question.

In the absence of evidence from the accused to rebut the presumption, and without proof that the entire amount was paid or that the cheque was issued for a different purpose, the courts are inclined to treat the presumption as valid, and the complainant's claim as supported by the evidence. Conversely, if the accused successfully demonstrates that the debt does not exist or that the amount was paid, the presumption can be rebutted, leading to the acquittal of the accused.