The Section 139 presumption: what it covers, and how it is rebutted
21 August 2026 · 7 min
Rangappa settled that the presumption extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt. Basalingappa set out how an accused discharges it. Knowing both is the difference between a complaint that survives and one that does not.
What does Section 139 presume?
Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requires a court to presume, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received it for the discharge of a debt or other liability.
In Rangappa v. Sri Mohan the Supreme Court held that this presumption extends to the existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability — not merely to the cheque having been issued. That is the reason a complainant is not required to prove the debt in the first instance.
How is the presumption rebutted?
It is rebuttable, and the standard is preponderance of probabilities rather than proof beyond reasonable doubt. The accused must raise a probable defence which makes the non-existence of the debt probable.
In Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa the Court set out the principles: the accused need not step into the witness box, and may rely on the complainant's own evidence and the circumstances of the case.
The trap in relying on Basalingappa
Basalingappa has been distinguished repeatedly, and the distinction usually turns on whether the accused actually questioned the complainant's financial capacity to advance the sum.
Where that question was never put in cross-examination, later benches have held Basalingappa inapplicable. An advocate relying on it without having laid that foundation should expect it.
What a complaint must establish
Under Section 138, presentation within validity, a demand notice within thirty days of the return memo, and failure to pay within fifteen days of receipt. All three are jurisdictional. A complaint that gets any of them wrong does not fail on merits — it fails at the threshold.
Solon holds the corpus this was written from. Every section, every mapping, and how later benches treated every authority. Open it on your own docket.
This is written for practising advocates and is not legal advice. Verify every provision and every citation against the source before relying on it.