The presumption under Section 139 is a rebuttable presumption; Section 139 is an example of a reverse onus and test of proportionality should guide construction and interpretation of reverse onus clauses on accused and accused cannot be expected to discharge an unduly high standard of proof; standard of proof for rebutting is of preponderance of probabilities; inference of preponderance of probabilities can be drawn not only from materials brought on record by parties but also by reference to circumstances upon which they rely [Rangappa v. Sri Mohan, (2010) 11 SCC 441].

“Trial Court after considering evidence and material on record held, if accused is able to raise a probable defense which creates doubts about existence of a legally enforceable debt or liability, prosecution can fail. It was clear, signature on cheque was admitted. The question to be looked into was to whether any probable defence was raised by accused. There was a burden on complainant to prove his financial capacity. We fail to see, how Trial Court’s findings can be termed as ‘perverse’ by High Court. We are satisfied, accused has raised a probable defence. Judgment of High Court is set aside and Judgment of Trial Court is restored.”

– Hon’ble Justice Ashok Bhushan, Basalingappa v. Mudibasappa, [Criminal Appeal No. 636 of 2019].