Statutory presumption in corruption cases arises from proved receipt of tainted money, even without direct proof of demand.

Once acceptance or receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration is proved, the statutory presumption of corrupt motive under Section 4(1) arises, even without direct proof of demand as bribe; a credible explanation is needed to rebut it. The absence of the complainant's testimony does not by itself defeat the prosecution where receipt of tainted currency is otherwise established and the accused's loan explanation is not credible. The acquittal was set aside, conviction restored, and the sentence was brought only down to the statutory minimum, not below it.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises on proof of acceptance or receipt of gratification without direct proof of demand as bribe; (ii) whether the prosecution failed to prove the offence merely because the complainant was not examined and the accused offered a loan explanation; (iii) whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum.

Issue (i): Whether the statutory presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 arises on proof of acceptance or receipt of gratification without direct proof of demand as bribe

Analysis: Section 4(1) creates a legal presumption once it is proved that the accused accepted or obtained gratification other than legal remuneration. The presumption is compulsory and can be drawn from direct or circumstantial evidence. The expression "gratification" is not confined to proof of bribe by direct evidence, and receipt of tainted money, if established and not credibly explained, is sufficient to attract the presumption. The accused's explanation is relevant only to rebut the presumption after it arises.

Conclusion: The presumption was available once receipt of the money was proved, even without direct proof of demand as bribe.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution failed to prove the offence merely because the complainant was not examined and the accused offered a loan explanation

Analysis: The absence of the complainant's testimony did not by itself nullify the prosecution case where other evidence proved receipt of the tainted currency and the explanation of hand loan was found not credible. The Court held that the High Court erred in treating the presumption as unavailable and in requiring direct proof of payment as bribe despite reliable evidence of receipt and recovery. The accused did not displace the factual basis for the statutory presumption.

Conclusion: The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction was restored.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence could be reduced below the statutory minimum

Analysis: The offence involved acceptance of illegal gratification, for which deterrent punishment was intended. Mere long pendency was not treated as a special reason to go below the minimum sentence mandated by law. Considering the accused's age, the Court reduced the sentence only to the minimum prescribed, while maintaining the fine.

Conclusion: The sentence was reduced only to the statutory minimum and not below it.

Final Conclusion: The judgment of acquittal was set aside, the conviction was upheld, and the sentence was modified only to the extent of bringing it down to the minimum term prescribed by law.

Ratio Decidendi: Once the prosecution proves acceptance or receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration by a public servant, the statutory presumption of corrupt motive arises and can be rebutted only by a credible explanation; direct proof of demand is not indispensable where the receipt is otherwise established.

---