Statutory presumption in corruption cases applies once illegal gratification is proved, and acquittal may be disturbed for perverse evidence appraisal.

In a corruption prosecution, the Supreme Court stated that once acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is proved, the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises as a presumption of law and the burden shifts to the accused. Applying that approach, the Court found the evidence and surrounding circumstances inconsistent with the accused's claim of a loan and supportive of illegal gratification, restoring the conviction under Section 161 IPC. The Court also noted that under Article 136 it may interfere with an acquittal where the High Court's appreciation of evidence is perverse, improper, or ignores material circumstances, and interference was warranted on the facts.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, in an appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court could interfere with a High Court order of acquittal where the appreciation of evidence was found to be perverse or improper. (ii) Whether, on the proved facts, the sum of Rs. 800 received by the accused was a loan or illegal gratification attracting the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and constituting the offence under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

Issue (i): Whether the Supreme Court could interfere with the acquittal under Article 136 where the High Court's approach to the evidence was perverse or improper.

Analysis: The scope of interference under Article 136 is not confined by a rigid rule against reviewing acquittals. The Court reaffirmed that it would not ordinarily interfere with findings of fact, but it may do so where the High Court acts perversely, improperly, or ignores material circumstances. The High Court's approach was found to have overlooked the statutory presumption and important evidentiary features bearing on the prosecution case.

Conclusion: Interference was warranted in the present case and the acquittal could be set aside.

Issue (ii): Whether the amount of Rs. 800 was a loan or illegal gratification and whether the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 applied.

Analysis: Once acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration was proved, Section 4 required the Court to presume, unless the contrary was proved, that it was accepted as a motive or reward. This is a presumption of law, not a mere presumption of fact, and it shifts the burden to the accused. On the evidence, the surrounding circumstances, the pending assessment proceedings, the demand and payment sequence, the conduct at the trap, and the unexplained features of the alleged loan story supported the prosecution version. The evidence pointed away from a genuine loan transaction and towards illegal gratification.

Conclusion: The amount was held to be illegal gratification and not a loan, and the conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code was restored.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was reversed, the prosecution case was accepted, and the conviction and sentence recorded by the Special Judge were restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, once acceptance of gratification other than legal remuneration is proved, the statutory presumption must be raised as a presumption of law, and an acquittal may be interfered with under Article 136 where the appellate court's appreciation of evidence is perverse or ignores material circumstances.

---