“We are of view, whenever accused has questioned financial capacity of complainant in support of his probable defence, despite presumption under Section 139 about presumption of a legally enforceable debt and such presumption is rebuttable, thereafter onus shifts again on complainant to prove his financial capacity and complainant is required to lead evidence to prove his financial capacity, more particularly when it is a case of giving loan by cash and thereafter issuance of a cheque.

Section 139 is an example of reverse onus clause and therefore once issuance of cheque has been admitted and even signature on cheque has been admitted, there is always a presumption in favour of complainant that there exists a legally enforceable debt or liability and thereafter it is for accused to rebut such presumption by leading evidence.”

– Hon’ble Justice M.R. Shah, APX Forex Services Pvt. Ltd. v. Shakti International Fashion Linkers, [Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2020].