In the case of B. Rama Raju, S/o B. Ramalinga Raju Vs. Union of India (UOI), [MANU/TN/1696/2011]; [(2012)1MLJ419], it was held that:
115. The presumption enjoined by Section 23 is clearly a rebuttable presumption i.e., presumptio pro tantum.116. In Izhar Ahmad v. Union of India MANU/SC/0094/1962 : AIR 1962 SC 1052, Gajendragadkar, J (as his Lordship then was) observed (in the majority opinion of the Constitution Bench) that: The term "Presumption" in its largest and most comprehensive signification, may be defined to be an inference, affirmative or disaffirmative of the truth of false-hood of a doubtful fact or proposition drawn by a process of probable reasoning from something proved or taken for granted. Quoting with approval the statement of principle set out in the Principles of the Law of Evidence by Best, his Lordship observed that when the rules of evidence provide for the raising of a rebuttable or irrebuttable presumption, they are merely attempting to assist the judicial mind in the matter of weighing the probative or persuasive force of certain facts proved in relation to other facts presumed or inferred.
To invoke the presumption under Section 23 of the PMLA, at least one of the transactions has to be proved to the “proceeds of crime” transaction.