Case Name : Basalingappa vs Mudibasappa Case Reference: (2019) 5 SCC 418 : (2019) 6 SCR 555 Case Number: Crl A No 636/2019 Court: Supreme Court Bench: 02 Coram: Ashok Bhushan (Author), KM Joseph Date: 09.04.2019
When the complainant is the holder of the cheque and the signature on the cheque is not denied, presumption is to be drawn that the cheque was issued for discharge of any debt or liability. This presumption NI Act - Section 139 is rebuttable. NI Act - Section 139 is an example of reverse onus.
The standard of proof for rebutting the presumption is that of preponderance of probabilities. It is open for the accused to rely on evidence led by him or to rely on materials submitted by the complainant in order to raise a probable defence. Inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from the materials brought on record by the parties but also by reference to the circumstances upon which they rely
It is not necessary for the accused to come in the witness box to support his defence
A complainant in a cheque bounce case is bound to explain his financial capacity, when the same is questioned by the accused, by leading evidence to that effect
Refer also: Kali Ram vs State of HP, (1973) 2 SCC 808
See also: NI Act - Section 118 NI Act - Section 138 Evidence - Section 3 Evidence, Section 4 Evidence - Section 114 CrPC - Section 378 CrPC - Section 386