AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 575 ::1963 AllCriR 185 ::1963 2 LabLJ 415 ::1964 MadLJ(Cri) 65 ::1964 (1) SCJ 133 ::1965 Bom LR 332 ::1963 (1) SCWR 178

Supreme Court Of India

(From : Bombay)*

Hon'ble Judge(s): S. Jafer Imam, K. Subba Rao, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar, J. R. Mudholkar , JJJ

Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947) , S.4(1)— Accused shown to have accepted money which was not legal remuneration - Presumption can be raised - Rebuttal must be by explanation which must be true and not merely plausible - Presumption under S. 4(1) and Evidence Act S. 114, distinction between - Whether presumption is rebutted is question of fact - Supreme Court will not interfere. Constitution of India , Art.136— Evidence Act (1 of 1872) , S.114— Penal Code (45 of 1860) , S.161— In order to raise the presumption under S. 4(1) Prevention of Corruption act what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused person has received "gratification other than legal remuneration" and when it is shown that he has received a certain sum of money which was not a legal remuneration, then the condition prescribed by this section is satisfied and the presumption thereunder must be raised. AIR 1960 SC 548. Rel. on.(Para 10) Whereas under S. 114 of the Evidence Act it is open to the Court to draw or not to draw a presumption as to the existence of one fact from the proof of another fact and it is not obligatory upon the court to draw such presumption, under sub-sec. (1) Prevention of Corruption Act, however, if a certain fact is proved, that is, where any gratification (other than legal gratification) or any valuable thing....