VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 85
313
49 could not be said to have taken effect until he came to know
about it on 28-5-51.
(85)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 20
(B) Presumption
Mere receipt of money is sufficient to raise
presumption under section 4(1) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to sec. 20 of
P.C. Act, 1988). Accused can discharge the burden
by establishing his case by preponderance of
probability.
V.D. Jhingan vs. State of Uttar Pradesh,
AIR 1966 SC 1762
The appellant, Assistant Director, Enforcement, Government
of India, Ministry of Commerce at Kanpur, was tried for offences under
sections 161 I.P.C., 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1947 (corresponding to secs. 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act,
1988).
The Supreme Court held that in order to raise the presumption
under section 4(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947
(corresponding to sec.20(1) of P.C. Act, 1988), 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 is not a legal remuneration,
then the presumption must be raised. Mere receipt of money is
sufficient to raise a presumption.
The Supreme Court also held that the burden of proof lying
upon the accused will be satisfied if the accused person establishes
his case by a preponderance of probability and it is not necessary
that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt.