Yes it will not but again here it will be expertise of defense advocate and not mere submission of higher court rulings. The advocate has to bring on record the non existance or illegality of liability than only the accused will be aquitted other wise not.
Following is the referece SC citation-
“31. A Division Bench of this Court ( Supreme court ) in Bharat Barrel & Drum
Mfg. Co. v. Amin Chand Payrelal albeit in a civil case laid down
the law in the following terms: (SCC pp. 50-51, para 12
“12. Upon consideration of various judgments as
noted hereinabove, the position of law which emerges
is that once execution of the promissory note is
admitted, the presumption under Section 118(a)
would arise that it is supported by a consideration.
Such a presumption is rebuttable.
The defendant can prove the non-existence of a consideration by raising a probable defence. If the defendant is proved to have discharged the initial onus of proof showing that the existence of consideration was improbable or doubtful
or the same was illegal, the onus would shift to the plaintiff who will be obliged to prove it as a matter of fact and upon its failure to prove would disentitle him
to the grant of relief on the basis of the negotiable instrument.
The burden upon the defendant of
proving the non-existence of the consideration can be
either direct or by bringing on record the
preponderance of probabilities by reference to the
circumstances upon which he relies.
In such an event, the plaintiff is entitled under law to rely upon
all the evidence led in the case including that of the
plaintiff as well. In case, where the defendant fails to
discharge the initial onus of proof by showing the
non-existence of the consideration, the plaintiff would
invariably be held entitled to the benefit of
presumption arising under Section 118(a) in his
The court may not insist upon the defendant
to disprove the existence of consideration by leading
direct evidence as the existence of negative evidence
is neither possible nor contemplated and even if led,
is to be seen with a doubt.”
This Court, therefore, clearly opined that it is not necessary for
the defendant to disprove the existence of consideration by way
of direct evidence.