Statutory presumption in corruption cases may follow proven circumstantial evidence of gratification, not only direct proof.

The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises once acceptance or receipt of gratification is proved, and that foundational fact may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference, not only by direct testimony. The Court held that proved facts, including a prior complaint, phenolphthalein treatment, recovery of tainted notes, and an unsatisfactory explanation, were sufficient to infer willing receipt of gratification and trigger the mandatory presumption that it was accepted as a reward for official action. The accused may rebut the presumption on evidence, but the defence here was found unreliable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be drawn when acceptance of gratification is proved by circumstantial evidence and factual inference rather than direct evidence; (ii) Whether the amount recovered from the accused was proved to be gratification so as to attract the statutory presumption.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be drawn when acceptance of gratification is proved by circumstantial evidence and factual inference rather than direct evidence.

Analysis: The expression "shall be presumed" creates a compulsory legal presumption once the foundational fact of acceptance or obtaining of gratification is proved. The section does not insist that such foundational fact must be established only by direct evidence. Proof may rest on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference drawn from proved facts. A factual presumption may supply the basis for the statutory presumption, but the presumption must arise from proved facts and not from another presumption in a chain unsupported by evidence.

Conclusion: The statutory presumption can arise on proof by circumstantial evidence, and not only on direct evidence; this contention was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount recovered from the accused was proved to be gratification so as to attract the statutory presumption.

Analysis: The proved circumstances showed prior complaint of demand, phenolphthalein treatment of the currency notes, recovery of the tainted notes from the accused immediately after the trap, and absence of a credible explanation at the relevant time. The Court held that these circumstances justified the inference that the accused willingly received the money, and once receipt of gratification was proved, the legal presumption that it was accepted as a reward for official action followed. The defence version and rebuttal evidence were found unreliable.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved receipt of gratification, and the presumption under Section 20 was rightly drawn; this contention was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were left undisturbed, and the appellant was not entitled to interference in appeal.

Ratio Decidendi: Once acceptance of gratification is proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence, the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 follows, and it is open to the accused to rebut it on evidence; a presumption may be drawn from proved facts but not from another unproved presumption.

---