Rebuttable presumption in corruption cases upheld where a public servant accepts money other than legal remuneration.

Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 was treated as a valid rebuttable presumption because public servants accused of bribery form an intelligible class linked to the object of combating corruption, so the Article 14 challenge failed. The Court further held that the presumption arises once it is proved that a public servant accepted money other than legal remuneration, since "gratification" is used in its ordinary sense and is not confined to direct proof of a bribe. On the facts, the accused's loan explanation was found improbable and did not rebut the presumption, so the conviction and sentence were sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India; (ii) whether the presumption under section 4(1) could be raised upon proof that the accused received money which was not legal remuneration; and (iii) whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by offering a reasonably probable explanation.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 violated Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The classification made by section 4(1) was held to rest on an intelligible differentia, namely public servants accused of bribery-related offences, and that differentia had a direct relation to the legislative object of eradicating corruption in public administration. The provision was treated as a reasonable classification and not as class legislation.

Conclusion: The challenge under Article 14 failed; section 4(1) was upheld as constitutional.

Issue (ii): Whether the presumption under section 4(1) could be raised upon proof that the accused received money which was not legal remuneration.

Analysis: The word "gratification" was construed in its ordinary sense and not restricted to money received expressly proved to be a bribe. Once it was shown that a public servant accepted money other than legal remuneration, the condition for raising the statutory presumption stood satisfied. The provision was also read consistently with the parallel reference to "valuable thing" in the same clause.

Conclusion: The presumption under section 4(1) was rightly raised on proof of receipt of Rs. 375 as gratification other than legal remuneration.

Issue (iii): Whether the accused successfully rebutted the presumption by offering a reasonably probable explanation.

Analysis: The defence explanation that the was a loan was rejected on appreciation of the oral evidence and surrounding probabilities. The explanation was found improbable and unsatisfactory, and the presumption was not displaced. The Court did not find it necessary to finally determine whether the accused's burden was lighter than the prosecution's burden beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The presumption was not rebutted, and the conviction was sustainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the conviction and sentence were maintained, the statutory presumption being valid and properly applied on the facts.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 creates a valid rebuttable presumption that arises once it is proved that a public servant accepted gratification other than legal remuneration, and the presumption stands unless the accused rebuts it by a credible and probable explanation.

---