Supreme Court of India

Rangappa v Sri Mohan

(2010) 11 SCC 44120101 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The accused was prosecuted under S.138 NI Act. He admitted his signature on the dishonoured cheque but claimed it had not been issued for a debt.
Issue
Whether the presumption under S.139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and what the accused must do to rebut it.
Held
The presumption under S.139 includes the presumption that a legally enforceable debt or liability exists. It is rebuttable: the accused must raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, and may rely on the complainant's own material. A bare denial is not enough.
Principle
S.139 presumes a legally enforceable debt; the accused rebuts it by a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities.
Cite this

Facts

  • The accused was prosecuted under S.138 NI Act. He admitted his signature on the dishonoured cheque but claimed it had not been issued for a debt.

Issue

  1. Whether the presumption under S.139 includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt, and what the accused must do to rebut it.

Held

  • The presumption under S.139 includes the presumption that a legally enforceable debt or liability exists. It is rebuttable: the accused must raise a probable defence on a preponderance of probabilities, and may rely on the complainant's own material. A bare denial is not enough.

Cite this

Citation

Rangappa v Sri Mohan (2010) 11 SCC 441

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150051/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.