Statutory presumption in corruption cases upheld despite partial hostility and rejected explanation for receipt of money.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was held sufficient to attract the statutory presumption, even though the complainant partly resiled from his earlier version. Read with the official and trap witnesses, the evidence showed that the first accused demanded the bribe and directed payment to the second accused, who accepted the money; recovery and the chemical test further supported the prosecution case. The explanation that the amount was an advance tax payment was rejected as inconsistent with the official records. The presumption arising from receipt of money other than legal remuneration was not rebutted by any credible explanation, and the convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to attract the statutory presumption and sustain the convictions despite the complainant's partial resiling from his earlier version and the plea that no money was recovered from one accused.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant was not treated as wholly effaced merely because he attempted to soften his version in part. Read with the evidence of the official and trap witnesses, the record showed that the first accused demanded the bribe and directed payment to the second accused, that the amount was accepted by the second accused, and that recovery and the chemical test supported the prosecution case. The explanation that the amount was received as advance tax was found inconsistent with the official records and was rejected. The statutory presumption governing acceptance of gratification was held to arise on proof of receipt of money other than legal remuneration, and the presumption was not rebutted by any credible explanation.

Conclusion: The convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld and the defence based on partial hostility of the complainant and absence of recovery from the first accused failed.

---