Presumption in favour of holder

1. REVERSE ONUS & STANDARD OF PROOF: • Shifts burden of proof to accused. Once execution and signature are admitted, court is legally bound to presume issuance for a legally enforceable debt (Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441). • Standard of Proof: Complainant must prove basic facts, but accused needs only to rebut on a "preponderance of probabilities" (civil standard), not beyond reasonable doubt. 2. REBUTTING THE PRESUMPTION: • No Need to Step into Witness Box: Accused can rebut purely through cross-examination of complainant and documentary admissions (Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets, 2009). • Financial Capacity / Source of Funds: If accused questions complainant's financial capacity for a substantial cash loan, complainant MUST prove liquidity via ITR/bank statements; failure rebuts presumption (Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, (2019) 5 SCC 418). • Security Cheque Misuse: Proving cheque was given for an earlier discharged transaction or as undischarged security without existing liability. 3. COMPLAINANT STRATEGY: • Blank Signed Cheque: Admission of signature gives payee authority under Section 20 to fill particulars; presumption under Section 139 remains intact (Bir Singh v. Mukesh Kumar, (2019) 4 SCC 197). • Ensure consistency across Legal Notice, Complaint, and Evidence Affidavit to prevent accused from piercing the presumption.