Presumption u/ss 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments...

Presumption u/ss 118(a) and 139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was not properly applied by the Trial Court. When presumption u/s 139 is raised, the onus shifts to the accused to rebut it. The Trial Court erred by dissecting the complainant's case instead of first examining if the accused successfully rebutted the presumption. The Supreme Court in Sumeti Vij case clarified that statement u/s 313 CrPC alone is insufficient for rebuttal. The accused did not lead any defence evidence despite claiming trial. The presumption is based on common sense - acquitting the accused without evidence to rebut it turns the law on its head. The Trial Court's approach was fundamentally flawed, leading to setting aside of the impugned order and allowing the appeal.