https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165438 Proof that the accused received money not shown to be legal remuneration triggered the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court treated the presumption as one of law, shifting the burden to the accused to displace the incriminating inference with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The defence version that the money was meant for transmission to temple authorities was rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. On the surrounding circumstances and the failure of the defence evidence, the presumption remained unrebutted and the conviction was sustained. en-us Fri, 28 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 26 Aug 2014 14:57:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165438 Proof that the accused received money not shown to be legal remuneration triggered the statutory presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The Court treated the presumption as one of law, shifting the burden to the accused to displace the incriminating inference with proof, not merely a plausible explanation. The defence version that the money was meant for transmission to temple authorities was rejected for lack of reliable supporting material. On the surrounding circumstances and the failure of the defence evidence, the presumption remained unrebutted and the conviction was sustained. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 28 Sep 1962 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=165438