Case Name : ANSS Rajashekar vs Augustus Jeba Ananth Case Reference: AIR 2019 SC 942 : (2020) 15 SCC 348 : (2019) 1 SCR 731 Case Number: Crl A Nos. 95-96/2019 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: DY Chandrachud (Author), MR Shah Date: 18.01.2019
Though NI Act - Section 139 mandates a presumption that the holder (NI Act - Section 8; i.e., the person whose name is on the cheque and is to receive the amount) of a cheque received such cheque so that some debt or liability, in part or in whole, is discharged by the drawer (NI Act - Section 7); this presumption is rebuttable. Terming this as a “reverse onus clause”, it was held that the prosecution can fail if the accused is able to raise a probable defence which creates doubts about the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The accused can rely on the materials submitted by the complainant.
Refer also: Rangappa vs Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441 {03 Judge Bench} - In determining whether the presumption under NI Act - Section 139 has been rebutted, the test of proportionality must guide the determination. The standard of proof to rebut the presumption is of preponderance of probabilities.
See also: NI Act - Section 138
PDF: ANSS Rajashekar vs Augustus Jeba Ananth, (2019) 1 SCR 731.pdf