Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Rebuttable Presumption: The presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act) is a rebuttable presumption of law, not a conclusive fact. Once the execution of the cheque and its issuance are admitted, the court presumes it was issued in discharge of a debt or liability, but this presumption can be challenged by the accused with evidence showing a probable defence.References: ["2025 0 Supreme(Del) 320"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3002"], [" Pramodkumar Chhotalal Vyas VS State of Gujarat - Crimes
Obligation to Raise Presumption: The court is mandated to raise the presumption under Section 139 once the factual basis (such as the cheque being presented and signature not being denied) is established. The presumption shall presume that the cheque was issued in discharge of a debt/liability (Section 139 is a 'shall presume' clause).References: ["2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 68"], ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3002"], ["2025 5 Supreme 300"]
Burden of Rebuttal: The burden shifts to the accused to rebut this presumption by adducing evidence to show that the preponderance of probabilities favors their defence. The standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.References: ["2025 0 Supreme(Del) 320"], ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 273"], ["2024 0 Supreme(HP) 98"], ["2024 0 Supreme(HP) 267"]
Legal Presumption vs. Fact Presumption: The presumption under Sections 118 and 139 is a presumption of law, which is rebuttable, as opposed to a presumption of fact. The law presumes the cheque was issued for consideration but allows the accused to disprove this.References: ["2023 0 Supreme(P&H) 3002"], ["2024 0 Supreme(Guj) 68"], [" Pramodkumar Chhotalal Vyas VS State of Gujarat - Crimes
Effect of Rebuttal: If the accused successfully produces evidence that reasonably explains the circumstances, the presumption is rebutted, and the burden shifts back to the prosecution to prove the debt or liability beyond reasonable doubt.References: ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 711"], ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 273"]
The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is a rebuttable legal presumption that a cheque issued in a cheque bounce case was for the discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. While courts are obliged to presume the existence of such a debt once the basic facts are established, the accused has the opportunity to rebut this presumption by producing evidence that creates a probable defence. The standard for rebuttal is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the burden initially lies with the complainant to establish the debt, but the accused can challenge this presumption effectively by presenting credible evidence, shifting the onus back to the prosecution. This framework ensures a fair balance between the rights of the complainant and the accused in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act.
References:
Pramodkumar Chhotalal Vyas VS State of Gujarat - Crimes
"], ["2024 0 Supreme(MP) 273"], ["2025 5 Supreme 300"], ["2024 0 Supreme(HP) 98"], ["2024 0 Supreme(HP) 267"], ["2024 0 Supreme(P&H) 711"]
Cheque bounce cases under () are among the most common criminal complaints in India, often arising from business transactions gone sour. A key element in these proceedings is the that favors the complainant. But what exactly is this presumption under 138 , and how can it be challenged? This blog post breaks it down, drawing from statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and practical insights to help you navigate these cases.
Note: This article provides general information based on legal principles and case law. It is not legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for advice specific to your situation.
Section 138 criminalizes the dishonour of a cheque due to insufficient funds or other reasons, provided certain conditions are met, such as the cheque being presented within validity and a demand notice issued. Once these are satisfied, the offence is complete, shifting focus to defenses like the absence of underlying debt.
A frequent query is: Presumption under 138 – referring primarily to the statutory presumption under . This section states that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.
Under Section 139, once a cheque is proved to have been issued and dishonoured (meeting Section 138 prerequisites), the court presumes it was issued for a or liability. This is a , meaning the accused can challenge it. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 617 2019 4 Supreme 366
At the , the court checks for a . It does not require the accused to disprove the debt outright but only to raise a probable defence. Detailed scrutiny happens at trial. 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 617
The court assesses:1. Whether conditions under Section 138 are met.2. If the presumption arises from the cheque and complainant's evidence. 2019 4 Supreme 366
Rebuttal requires the accused to present evidence creating doubt about the debt's existence, the cheque's purpose, or its issuance. Mere denial is insufficient. 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 3151
For instance, in a case where cheques were allegedly blank signed ones misused, the court noted: plaintiff had lifted blank cheques signed and kept by deceased drawer of table of his office with connivance of staff. This cast doubt on execution for debt. 2019 0 Supreme(Kar) 987
Another ruling emphasized: Mere denial is not sufficient to hold the accused satisfactorily discharged the burden of presumption. The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act are to be rebutted with decree of preponderance of probability. 2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 3151
If a cheque was issued as (not for debt discharge), this can rebut the presumption if probablized. In one revision, the accused successfully showed the cheque was for Rs. 1.9 lakhs, not Rs. 4.6 lakhs debt, leading to acquittal. 2016 0 Supreme(Kar) 116
Presumption applies only to existing or legally recoverable debt. No presumption if no enforceable liability existed, e.g., under . 2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 380
Judicial precedents refine these principles:
In remand cases, courts stress examining bank managers for memos and proper witnesses for contracts. 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 164
For accused: Gather documents promptly. For complainants: Bolster with strong initial evidence.
Stay informed on updates – these cases hinge on nuanced presumptions. Facing a cheque bounce? Seek professional guidance to tailor your strategy.
Word count: ~1050. Sources cited are for illustrative purposes; full judgments provide deeper context.
#Section138, #NIACT, #ChequeBounce
This complaint to police was filed only after the defence disclosed by the respondent in notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. in complaints of 138NIAct. Under these circumstances, I do not find any illegality in the order of ld.
It is relevant to note that the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act is not absolute, and may be controverted by the accused. ... It is well settled that once the execution of the cheque is admitted, the presumption under Section 118 of the NI Act that the cheque in question was drawn for consideration and the presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act that the holder of the cheque/ respondent received the cheque in discharge ... Of....
Section 118 /139 of the Act is not a statutory presumption of fact, rather it is a presumption of law and the accused can always adduce evidence to disprove the presumption and to prove to the contrary. ... On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/accused vehemently argued that the presumption under Section 118 read with Section 139 of the Act was a presumption of law and was rebuttable....
The distinction between 'may presume' and 'shall presume' clauses is that, as regards the former, the Court has an option to raise the presumption or not, but in the latter case, the Court must necessarily raise the presumption. ... The Evidence Act provides for presumptions, which fit within one of three forms: 'may presume' (rebuttable presumptions of fact), 'shall presume' (rebuttable presumption of law) and conclusive presumptions (irre....
The complainant being holder of cheque and the signature on the cheque having not been denied by the accused, presumption shall be drawn that cheque was issued for the discharge of any debt or other liability. The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption. ... Once those facts are shown by the prosecution to exist, the Court can raise the statutory presumption and it would, in such an event, be for the accu....
This Court observed that the presumption mandated by Section 139 of the NI Act includes a presumption that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability. ... This Court, then, explained the manner in which this statutory presumption can be rebutted. ... The burden lies upon the accused to rebut the presumption by adducing evidence. The High Court did not keep in view that until the accused discharges his burden, the....
The presumption under section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. ... Once the recovery of legally recoverable debt is established by the complainant, the presumption under sections 118-A and 139 of the N. I. Act attracts and the burden to rebut the presump....
The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. ... Act mandates a presumption that the cheque was for the discharge of any debt or other liability. It has however been held that the presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable #H....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. ... The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of the preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. ... There is a presumption that the cheque is issued in discharge of legal liability and the burden is upon the accused to rebut ....
The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. ... The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption and the onus is on the accused to raise the probable defence. The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of the preponderance of probabilities. 25.3. ... There is a presumption that the cheque is issued in discharge of legal liability and the burden is upon the accused to rebut ....
Act can be raised that the cheque has been issued in discharge of a debt or liability but such presumption can only be drawn if there was an existing or legally recoverable debt or liability. It contends although presumption under Section 138 N.I. Act made out as the cheque was not issued in respect of existing or enforceable debt or liability.
Therefore, the presumption under Section 118 of the N.I. As such, the execution of Promissory Notes is doubtful. In support of his argument, learned counsel for plaintiff/appellant relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Saftarsab Vs.
Mere denial is not sufficient to hold the accused satisfactorily discharged the burden of presumption. The statutory presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. Act are to be rebutted with decree of preponderance of probability.
If a relevant evidence is withheld, the court may draw a presumption to the effect that if the same was produced might have gone unfavourable to the plaintiff. Such a presumption was itself held to be sufficient to rebut the presumption arising under Section 118 of the Act stating: We are not concerned here with irrebuttable presumptions of law." "Briefly stated, the burden of proof may be shifted by presumptions of law or fact, and presumptions of law or presumptions of fact....
The presumption available under Sections 118 and 139 of N.I. The accused can rebut the same by either entering into the witness box or effectively cross examining the complainant and her witness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
