https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172513 The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises once acceptance or receipt of gratification is proved, and that foundational fact may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference, not only by direct testimony. The Court held that proved facts, including a prior complaint, phenolphthalein treatment, recovery of tainted notes, and an unsatisfactory explanation, were sufficient to infer willing receipt of gratification and trigger the mandatory presumption that it was accepted as a reward for official action. The accused may rebut the presumption on evidence, but the defence here was found unreliable. en-us Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 06 Jan 2026 16:06:18 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172513 The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises once acceptance or receipt of gratification is proved, and that foundational fact may be established by circumstantial evidence and reasonable inference, not only by direct testimony. The Court held that proved facts, including a prior complaint, phenolphthalein treatment, recovery of tainted notes, and an unsatisfactory explanation, were sufficient to infer willing receipt of gratification and trigger the mandatory presumption that it was accepted as a reward for official action. The accused may rebut the presumption on evidence, but the defence here was found unreliable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 12 Dec 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172513