Rebuttal of statutory presumption can shift evidential burden and restore acquittal when defence evidence preponderates.

When an accused adduces credible evidence that, on the preponderance of probabilities, undermines consideration and contemporaneous documentation for negotiable instruments, the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act can be rebutted and the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant; where the trial court accepted such a defence on the totality of evidence, a higher court should not overturn the acquittal by relying primarily on statutory presumptions without reassessing defence evidence. Operative effect: the conviction and sentence set aside and the trial court acquittal restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused/petitioner rebutted the statutory presumptions relating to negotiable instruments and whether the lower appellate court was justified in setting aside the trial court's acquittal and convicting the accused under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The Court examined the trial evidence including defence witnesses and documentary exhibits relied upon by the petitioner to demonstrate lack of consideration, absence of contemporaneous documentation by the complainant, and the complainant's admission of circumstances (police complaint regarding seizure of the vehicle, alleged pledge of jewels not substantiated by documents or witnesses). The Court applied the principle that an accused may adduce evidence to rebut the presumptions arising under the Negotiable Instruments Act and that once such rebuttal is accepted on the preponderance of probabilities, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant. The Court noted that the trial Court evaluated the totality of evidence and accepted the defence's version, whereas the lower appellate court primarily relied on statutory presumptions without fully considering the defence evidence and the materials as a whole.

Conclusion: The Court concluded that the petitioner successfully rebutted the statutory presumptions and probablized his defence; the lower appellate court's interference with the trial court's acquittal was not justified. The criminal revision is allowed, the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower appellate court are set aside, and the trial court's acquittal is restored and confirmed; the petitioner is acquitted of all charges.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused adduces credible rebuttal evidence that, on preponderance of probabilities, negates the complainant's case, the evidential burden shifts back to the complainant and the statutory presumptions under the Negotiable Instruments Act cease to operate in the complainant's favour.

---