Statutory presumption in bribery cases arises only after proving illegal gratification, not a lawful fee collection.

The statutory presumption of corrupt acceptance applies only after the prosecution first proves that the money received was gratification and not a lawful fee or collection. On the surrounding facts, including registration rules on advance deposit, fees, receipt entries and copies, a reasonable possibility existed that the amount was a lawful charge. The absence of an immediate receipt entry or formal acknowledgement was not decisive, and the prosecution failed to exclude the defence explanation beyond reasonable doubt. The presumption could not therefore be sustained, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the amount received by the public servant was proved to be illegal gratification so as to attract the statutory presumption, or whether it could reasonably be treated as lawful collection of fees, entitling the accused to acquittal.

Analysis: The statutory presumption arises only after the prosecution proves that what was received was gratification. The term "gratification" is used in the sense of receipt for personal satisfaction or pleasure, and not for a lawful collection or legal remuneration. The surrounding facts, including the applicable registration rules relating to advance deposit, fees, receipt entries, and copies, created a reasonable possibility that the amount collected was towards lawful charges. The absence of immediate receipt entry or formal acknowledgement was not decisive in the circumstances, and the evidence did not exclude the defence explanation beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The money was not proved to be illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption could not be sustained, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: The statutory presumption of corrupt acceptance operates only after the prosecution first proves that the money received was gratification and not a lawful fee or collection; where a reasonable doubt remains on that foundational fact, the accused gets its benefit.

---