JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-Bheru lal has filed this revision petition u/Section 397 read with Section 401 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dated October 26, 1991 passed by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Court, Kota in Cr. Appeal No. 92/91 whereby conviction of the petitioner under Section 4/6 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955 was maintained and he was sentenced to one month's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/-. In default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment for a period of 7 days was awarded. 2. In brief, the prosecution case is that PW 3 Ram Bilas made a report at Police Station Simalya, in which, he made a complaint that he had gone to the shop of Bherulal and Ramchandra Nai, but they refused to do his hair-cutting on the ground that he belongs to Schedule Caste. On this complaint, FIR No. 49/89 was registered under Section 4/6 of the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed against the petitioner and the co-accused Ram Chandra in the Court of Special Judicial Magistrate, Kota. During the trial, the prosecution examined 7 witnesses. The petitioner denied the allegations in his statement u/Section 313 Cr.P.C. He examined 4 witnesses in defence and he also appeared in the witness-box as DW 2. The learned Magistrate, on the basis of the presumption u/Section 12 of the Act convicted and sentenced the petitioner u/Section 4 read with Section 6 and sentenced him to three months simple imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- vide judgment dated June 30, 1990. The co-accused Ram Chandra was acquitted from all the charges. On appeal, the learned appellate Court, though, maintained the conviction of the petitioner, but reduced the sentences as stated earlier. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the find in of the learned Courts below in appreciating the evidence and holding the petitioner guilty of the offence by raising a presumption under Section 12 of the Act is erroneous. 3. It is contended by the learned Counsel that the find in of the learned Courts below in appreciating the evidence and holding the petitioner guilty of the offence by raising a presumption under Section 12 of the Act is erroneous. Learned Counsel contended that from the statement of the defence witnesses, as well as, from the statement of the accused petitioner as DW 2, the presumption u/Section 12 of the Act stands rebutted and it is proved that the complainant was not denied hair-cutting on the ground of "Un-touchability", but in fact it was the complainant who created a scene in the shop of the petitioner and insisted to make his hair-cutting out of turn on priority basis. It was denied by the petitioner that on account of this, he made a false report to the police. Both the Courts below on the basis of statement of PW 3 Ram Bilas has said that he was denied hair-cutting and then a presumption was raised against the petitioner u/Section 12 of the Act. DW 1 is Mahaveer, who is Kumhar by Caste. He was present at the time of the incident and he has deposed that on 6.6.89 he had gone to the shop of the petitioner for haircutting and he was taking the customers on their turn. When he went there the petitioner was making hair-cutting of someone-else and he was sitting for his turn. In the meantime the complainant-Ram Bilas came there and asked the petitioner to do his hair cutting, on which, the petitioner replied that it will be done on his turn. However, Ram Bilas created a scene and started struggling with the petitioner and gave a threat that he will make a report against him. He also stated that no abusive language was used by the petitioner at that time. This witness has been cross examined at length and nothing has come to show that he was making a false statement or that he 'was not present at the time of occurrence. DW 2 is the accused-petitioner himself, who appeared in the witness box. He also testified the above facts as narrated by Mahavir. His statement appears to be straight-forward. DW 3 is Ram Chandra, the brother of the petitioner and he also made similar statement. DW 2 is the accused-petitioner himself, who appeared in the witness box. He also testified the above facts as narrated by Mahavir. His statement appears to be straight-forward. DW 3 is Ram Chandra, the brother of the petitioner and he also made similar statement. DW 4 is Panachand, who is Dhakkar by caste and had stated that on several occasions he had gone to the petitioner for hair-cutting. He also testified that Ram Bilas complainant had gone to the petitioner's shop in his presence and 3-4 persons were waiting for their turn. He was also sitting for his turn. Ram Bilas insisted to make his hair-cutting out of turn, but the accused denied to oblige him. On this Ram Bilas went from the shop hurling abuses to him. His statement has not been diluted in the cross-examination. Nothing has come in his cross- examination on the basis of which his testimony can be discarded. Thus, the statements of DW 1 to DW 4 establish that the complainant Ram Bilas was not denied hair-cutting on . the ground of his being a member of Scheduled-Caste. On the contrary, the incident took place because Ram Bilas insisted for his haircutting out of turn, while the petitioner replied to do his hair-cutting as per the turn. On this Ram Bilas made a scene and left the shop abusing the petitioner. 4. Section 12 of the Act raises presumption and it reads as under: "12. Presumption by Courts in certain cases: Where any act constituting an offence under this Act is committed in relation to a member of a Scheduled Castes, the Court shall presume unless the contrary is proved, that such act was committed on the ground of "untouchability." 5. A perusal of the said provisions makes it clear that the presumption under this provision is not final and it can be rebutted by the accused. The burden of the accused to rebut his presumption is not so heavy as it lies on the prosecution. The burden can be discharged by him by showing pre-ponderence of probability in favour of the plea taken by him. The statements of DW 2 to DW 4, in my view, clearly rebut the presumption of Section 12 of the Act. 6. The learned Courts below did not properly appreciate the effect of presumption and the evidence in rebuttal produced in defence. 7. Consequently, I allow this revision. The statements of DW 2 to DW 4, in my view, clearly rebut the presumption of Section 12 of the Act. 6. The learned Courts below did not properly appreciate the effect of presumption and the evidence in rebuttal produced in defence. 7. Consequently, I allow this revision. The conviction and sentence of the petitioner u/Section 4 read with Section 6 of the Protection of the Civil Rights Act are set aside. He is on bail and hence he need not surrender his bail bonds. His bail bonds are cancelled. If he pays the amount of fine, the same shall be refunded to him in accordance with law. The revision petition is allowed, as indicated above.Petition allowed. *******