Once the signature of an accused on the cheque/negotiable instrument is established, the “reverse onus” clauses become operative and in such situation, obligation shifts upon the accused to discharge the presumption imposed upon him – Wipro Ltd., Cuttack Vs. Prasanna Kumar Baral – Orissa High Court
Section 139 of NI Act which speaks about presumption in favour of holder of cheque in the following terms that it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in Section 138 for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability. A plain reading of aforesaid statutory presumptions relating to dishonor of cheque makes it ample clear that the complainant has to establish by way of leading evidence that he or she is the holder of cheque and the cheque was issued by the accused, but when the same was presented got dishonored. Once these facts are established by the complainant, the burden turns to the accused to rebut the presumption that the cheque was issued not for any debt or other liability. In other words, once the complainant establishes that the cheque was issued by the accused and the same got dishonored on presentation, the accused has to establish through evidence to rebut the statutory presumption attached for dishonor of cheque, which was issued by him, was issued not for discharge of any debt or other liability.