https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274084 Once the prosecution proves payment or acceptance of gratification by a public servant, the statutory presumption that it was received as a motive or reward for official action arises, and the accused must rebut it; on the facts, the tainted money was proved and the defence failed, so the conviction was upheld. Under the sentencing proviso in the earlier corruption law, a term below the statutory minimum could be imposed only for special reasons recorded in writing; mere pendency or delay was not such a reason, so the reduced sentence was unauthorized and the original punishment was restored. en-us Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 27 Jul 2018 11:41:12 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274084 Once the prosecution proves payment or acceptance of gratification by a public servant, the statutory presumption that it was received as a motive or reward for official action arises, and the accused must rebut it; on the facts, the tainted money was proved and the defence failed, so the conviction was upheld. Under the sentencing proviso in the earlier corruption law, a term below the statutory minimum could be imposed only for special reasons recorded in writing; mere pendency or delay was not such a reason, so the reduced sentence was unauthorized and the original punishment was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 09 Nov 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=274084