Section 139 presumption under the NI Act remained unrebutted where denial and unproved suggestions failed to displace admitted borrowing.

The Bombay HC reiterated that once cheque issuance, dishonour and borrowing were admitted, the burden shifted to the accused to rebut the Section 139 Negotiable Instruments Act presumption of a legally enforceable debt on a preponderance of probabilities. A bare denial, a cryptic letter and unproved cross-examination suggestions were held insufficient, especially because the accused did not testify or lead affirmative evidence of repayment; the presumption therefore remained unrebutted. The Court also held that the complainant was not a money-lender merely because he had advanced funds to a few persons without interest, as the transaction did not fit the statutory concept of money-lending under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001. The conviction and compensation order were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused succeeded in rebutting the presumption under Section 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The cheque issuance and dishonour were not in dispute, and the accused admitted borrowing Rs. 2,00,000/- from the complainant. The burden therefore shifted to the accused to rebut the statutory presumption of legally enforceable debt on a preponderance of probabilities. The Court held that a bare denial, cryptic letter, and unproved suggestions in cross-examination were insufficient to displace the presumption, particularly when the accused did not enter the witness box or lead affirmative evidence of repayment. The Court also held that the complainant could not be branded as a money-lender merely because he had advanced money to a few persons without interest, since the transaction did not satisfy the statutory concept of money-lending under the Goa Money-Lenders Act, 2001.

Conclusion: The accused did not rebut the presumption under Section 139, and the appellate court's finding that the debt was not legally recoverable was unsustainable. The conviction and compensation order were restored in favour of the complainant.

---