https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172776 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was held sufficient to attract the statutory presumption, even though the complainant partly resiled from his earlier version. Read with the official and trap witnesses, the evidence showed that the first accused demanded the bribe and directed payment to the second accused, who accepted the money; recovery and the chemical test further supported the prosecution case. The explanation that the amount was an advance tax payment was rejected as inconsistent with the official records. The presumption arising from receipt of money other than legal remuneration was not rebutted by any credible explanation, and the convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld. en-us Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 01 Jul 2025 11:41:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172776 Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was held sufficient to attract the statutory presumption, even though the complainant partly resiled from his earlier version. Read with the official and trap witnesses, the evidence showed that the first accused demanded the bribe and directed payment to the second accused, who accepted the money; recovery and the chemical test further supported the prosecution case. The explanation that the amount was an advance tax payment was rejected as inconsistent with the official records. The presumption arising from receipt of money other than legal remuneration was not rebutted by any credible explanation, and the convictions under the Prevention of Corruption Act were upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Jan 2004 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=172776