Illegal gratification and statutory presumption against a public servant upheld; defect in charge caused no prejudice.

Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant attracted the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and that presumption was not rebutted because no material showed a reasonable probability of lawful receipt. Evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted currency with anthracene powder on the appellant's hands supported the prosecution case. For section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, actual ability to perform the promised official act was unnecessary where office was used to extract money. The objection to the charge failed because the accused was sufficiently informed of the accusation, no prejudice was shown, and any irregularity was cured by section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

---

---

Issues: Whether the appellant's acceptance of tainted money from the complainant, in the circumstances proved, established offences under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stood rebutted or the conviction was vitiated by any defect in the charge.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant and the independent panch witness established demand and acceptance of Rs. 500 as gratification, and the recovery of tainted currency together with the anthracene powder on the appellant's hands corroborated the prosecution case. Once acceptance of gratification not constituting legal remuneration was proved, the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose, and the appellant failed to displace it by any evidence showing a reasonable probability that the money was received for a lawful purpose. The Court further held that section 161 of the Indian Penal Code does not require proof that the public servant was actually in a position to perform the official act or that any complaint or case was in fact pending, and that the appellant's use of his office to extract money was enough. The objection based on the charge was rejected because the appellant was sufficiently informed of the substance of the accusation, no prejudice was shown, and any irregularity was cured by section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld, the presumption was not rebutted, and the technical objection to the charge failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was dismissed and the respondent's case succeeded on all material questions.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant attracts the statutory presumption, which can be rebutted only by material establishing a reasonable probability of a lawful receipt; for an offence under section 161, actual power to perform the promised official act is unnecessary if the money is taken by holding out official assistance, and a non-prejudicial defect in charge is curable.

---