Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Friday, 07 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-04-09 allowed

BASALINGAPPA vs MUDIBASAPPA

Bench: 2 — Ashok Bhushan, K.M. Joseph

In Brief

A retired bus conductor lent Rs. 6,00,000 to the accused, who issued a cheque dated 27.02.2012 that dishonoured. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the complainant failed to prove financial capacity to lend such a large sum. The High Court reversed the acquittal and convicted the accused. The Supreme Court restored the acquittal, holding that the accused had raised a probable defence by highlighting the complainant's questionable financial capacity (having retired with Rs. 8,00,000 in 1997 and made multiple large loans totalling Rs. 18 lakhs within two years) and inconsistencies in the complainant's account of when the loan was given. The Court clarified that to rebut the presumption under Section 139, the accused need only establish preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, and can rely on the complainant's own evidence to do so.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Negotiable Instruments Criminal Appeal Section 138 Cheque Dishonour Presumption Probable Defence Financial Capacity Evidence

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login