Statutory presumption of gratification shifts burden to accused; evidence must be assessed to reject a loan inference and may sustain conviction.

The note addresses whether acceptance of money during pending assessment proceedings constituted illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by applying the Act's statutory presumption that proved acceptance of gratification shifts the onus to the accused to show absence of motive or reward. It finds the High Court failed to give effect to that presumption and under appreciated material prosecution evidence - contemporaneous file notes, delays in enquiries, circumstances of meetings and cash handling - concluding the loan inference was untenable and supporting reinstatement of conviction.

---

---

Issues: Whether the sum of Rs. 800 accepted by the accused while assessment proceedings were pending constituted an illegal gratification under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and whether the High Court erred in acquitting the accused.

Analysis: The record shows assessment and penalty proceedings in respect of the complainant were pending before the accused, and contemporaneous notes and communications indicate the accused dealt with the complainant in the course of those official proceedings. The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, provides a statutory presumption where it is proved that an accused accepted any gratification; that presumption is one of law and shifts the onus on the accused to disprove that the sum was accepted as a motive or reward for official favour. The High Court treated the competing versions as balanced and applied benefit of doubt to the accused without giving proper effect to the statutory presumption. Material facts supporting prosecution - including file notes showing defects in the assessee's accounts, unexplained delay in enquiries, the accused's need for money, the circumstances of the conditional meeting at the accused's house, payment of Rs. 200 and later Rs. 800, the accused producing the notes from his dhoti when confronted, and the subsequent production of a pronote not found in the earlier search - were either missed or under-appreciated by the High Court. Considering the evidence as a whole and the mandatory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, the inference that the transaction was a loan is not reasonably tenable and the conclusion that the sum was an illegal gratification is supported.

Conclusion: The conviction of the accused for accepting illegal gratification is restored; the High Court's judgment of acquittal is set aside and the Special Judge's conviction is reinstated in favour of the appellant.

---