Statutory presumption in corruption cases stands unless the accused proves a true and probable explanation.

Proof that the accused received money not shown to be legal remuneration triggered the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court treated the presumption as one of law, shifting the burden to the accused to displace the incriminating inference with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The defence version that the money was meant for transmission to temple authorities was rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. On the surrounding circumstances and the failure of the defence evidence, the presumption remained unrebutted and the conviction was sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose on proof of receipt of money not shown to be legal remuneration, and whether the accused rebutted that presumption by establishing a true and probable explanation.

Analysis: On proof that the accused had received Rs. 1,000 which was not his legal remuneration, the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was bound to arise. The provision created a presumption of law, not a mere presumption of fact, and the burden shifted to the accused to disprove the incriminating inference. A mere plausible or reasonable explanation was not enough; the explanation had to be supported by proof sufficient to displace the statutory presumption. The Court found no reliable material to accept the defence version that the money was paid for transmission to temple authorities. The surrounding circumstances and the rejection of the supporting evidence justified the conclusion that the presumption was not rebutted.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 4 was rightly drawn and remained unrebutted; the conviction was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the accused did not displace the statutory presumption arising from acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration.

Ratio Decidendi: A presumption of law created by a corruption statute is rebutted only by proof that reasonably displaces the prosecution case, and not by a merely probable or plausible explanation.

---