Illegal gratification presumption and trusted trap evidence sustain corruption conviction despite acceptance for another person.

Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant triggers the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the accused must rebut it with evidence; a bare denial is insufficient, so the presumption stood unrebutted. Liability was not avoided by contending that the money was accepted for another person or that the accused could not personally confer the official favour, because acceptance of gratification for oneself or another person remains covered by Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. Complainant and trap-witness testimony is not inherently unreliable and may sustain conviction if trustworthy; the reversal of acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acceptance of gratification by a public servant attracts the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and whether the presumption stood rebutted. (ii) Whether acceptance of money on behalf of another person, or the accused's inability to personally confer the expected benefit, negates liability under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. (iii) Whether the evidence of the complainant and the trap witness could be discarded as interested evidence, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether acceptance of gratification by a public servant attracts the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and whether the presumption stood rebutted.

Analysis: Once acceptance of the amount by the accused was found proved, the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arose. The accused offered a complete denial and false implication but led no evidence to rebut the presumption. In these circumstances, the presumption remained unrebutted.

Conclusion: The presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 applied and was not rebutted.

Issue (ii): Whether acceptance of money on behalf of another person, or the accused's inability to personally confer the expected benefit, negates liability under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Analysis: The decisive fact was acceptance of the amount by the accused. It was immaterial whether the money was accepted for himself or for another person, because both Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 cover acceptance or obtaining for oneself or for any other person. The accused could not escape liability by describing himself as a mere carrier or by asserting that he was not in a position to grant the official favour.

Conclusion: Acceptance of gratification for another person did not negate liability, and the conviction was sustainable.

Issue (iii): Whether the evidence of the complainant and the trap witness could be discarded as interested evidence, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Analysis: There is no rule of law that evidence of a complainant or police officer is inherently unreliable. Such evidence must be tested on truthfulness and trustworthiness, and may form the basis of conviction if found reliable. An appellate court may reappreciate evidence in an appeal against acquittal, and interference is warranted where the trial court applies an erroneous approach to the evidence and the governing legal principles. Here, the trial court erred in discarding the testimony solely on the ground of interest and in failing to apply the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The evidence was not liable to be rejected merely as interested evidence, and the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court was upheld and the appeal failed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant is proved, the statutory presumption of corrupt motive arises and, if unrebutted, sustains conviction even when the amount is accepted for another person; trustworthy complainant or police evidence may be relied upon, and an acquittal may be reversed where the trial court applies an erroneous legal approach.

---