Statutory presumption in corruption cases stands unless a public servant proves a probable lawful explanation for the payment.

Acceptance of money by a public servant triggers the statutory presumption that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward for corruption, and that presumption is displaced only by evidence showing a reasonable and probable lawful explanation on a balance of probabilities. A bare statement under Section 313 CrPC, without corroboration, is insufficient. On the proved facts, the demand, acceptance and recovery in the trap case were found trustworthy, while the defence claim that the payment was towards government dues was unsupported by the record. The acquittal was therefore set aside, the conviction restored, and the sentence reduced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the accused had rebutted the statutory presumption arising from acceptance of money by showing that the amount was received towards government dues and not as illegal gratification, and whether the High Court was justified in acquitting the accused.

Analysis: Acceptance of money by a public servant for an offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 attracts the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Act that the gratification was accepted as a motive or reward. The accused is not required to disprove the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt, but the presumption can be displaced only by material on record showing a reasonable and probable explanation supported by evidence. A mere explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, without corroboration, is insufficient. On the facts proved, the evidence of demand, acceptance and recovery in the trap case was consistent and trustworthy, while the defence version that the payment was towards a government loan was unsupported and contradicted by the record, including the fact that the dues, if any, were shown against the complainant's brother and not the complainant.

Conclusion: The accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption, and the High Court was not justified in extending the benefit of doubt. The conviction was restored and the sentence was reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the acquittal was set aside, and the conviction under the corruption-related offences was reinstated with a reduced custodial sentence.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, once acceptance of money by a public servant is proved, the statutory presumption of illegal gratification can be displaced only by evidence showing, on a balance of probabilities, a true and probable lawful explanation; an uncorroborated belated explanation is not enough.

---