Section 139: Presumption in favour of holder

Leading cases

• Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar (2025)The Court restored a cheque bounce conviction set aside in revision, held that breach of Section 269SS of the Income Tax Act does not displace the Section 139 presumption, and issued guidelines for Section 138 cases.

Questions on this section

1 question in 4 of our papers cite Section 139. Try these from the free papers:

1. 1. In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan (2010), a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held regarding the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 that:

   A.it includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt and is rebuttable on a preponderance of probabilitiesB.it can be rebutted by the accused only by proof beyond reasonable doubt, as the section is a reverse onus clauseC.it does not extend to the existence of a legally enforceable debt, which the complainant must always proveD.it can be rebutted only if the accused enters the witness box himself and is cross-examined by the complainant
   Show answer