https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175099 Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant triggers the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the accused must rebut it with evidence; a bare denial is insufficient, so the presumption stood unrebutted. Liability was not avoided by contending that the money was accepted for another person or that the accused could not personally confer the official favour, because acceptance of gratification for oneself or another person remains covered by Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. Complainant and trap-witness testimony is not inherently unreliable and may sustain conviction if trustworthy; the reversal of acquittal was upheld. en-us Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 26 Oct 2017 14:54:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175099 Acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant triggers the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and the accused must rebut it with evidence; a bare denial is insufficient, so the presumption stood unrebutted. Liability was not avoided by contending that the money was accepted for another person or that the accused could not personally confer the official favour, because acceptance of gratification for oneself or another person remains covered by Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. Complainant and trap-witness testimony is not inherently unreliable and may sustain conviction if trustworthy; the reversal of acquittal was upheld. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 27 Aug 2007 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=175099