https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284101 Proof of receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration attracted the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was required only to rebut that presumption by establishing a competing explanation on a preponderance of probability, not by proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt. On the stated facts, the claim that the payment was a loan was rejected because the surrounding circumstances supported the prosecution version, and the conviction was sustained even without reliance on the disputed statements. en-us Thu, 03 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 31 Oct 2019 17:24:50 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284101 Proof of receipt of gratification other than legal remuneration attracted the statutory presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused was required only to rebut that presumption by establishing a competing explanation on a preponderance of probability, not by proving innocence beyond reasonable doubt. On the stated facts, the claim that the payment was a loan was rejected because the surrounding circumstances supported the prosecution version, and the conviction was sustained even without reliance on the disputed statements. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 03 Mar 1966 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284101