Section 4

BSA Section 4 is textually identical to IEA Section 4 — the foundational classification of presumption types is preserved without any change. The word 'Adhiniyam' replaces 'Act' throughout, but the legal content is the same. **Why no change?** The three-way classification in Section 4 is abstract and definitional — it defines terms used in other sections. The substantive changes in the BSA are in the specific presumption provisions that use these terms: Section 111 (presumptions as to documents), Section 112 (conclusive proof of legitimacy), Section 57 (reverse burden for electronic evidence tampering). Section 4 itself is the framework, not the substance. **New presumption provisions in BSA that use Section 4's framework:** - BSA Section 57(3): The court shall presume that electronic evidence has not been tampered with if produced with a certificate — a 'shall presume' using the Section 4 framework. - BSA Section 111: Several 'shall presume' provisions relating to negotiable instruments carry forward from IEA. - BSA Section 112: The conclusive proof of legitimacy provision carries forward from IEA Section 112 — though the DNA testing debate continues. **Interaction with BNSS reverse burden provisions:** The BNSS (BSA's criminal procedure companion) also contains presumptions — for example, presumptions in NDPS Act cases, UAPA cases. These interact with BSA Section 4's framework: a 'shall presume' in the NDPS Act means the accused must produce evidence to disprove it, using the BSA Section 4 standard.