This is a special provision in he Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is also contained under Section No.4 of the earlier P.C. Act of 1947. Presumption has the effect of over-riding the provisions contained in Part III - Chapter VII -sections 101 to 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Presumption is not however a fact, because it is open to the accused to let in evidence to establish that he is still innocent. This is indicated by presence of the phrase "unless the contrary is proved". Presumption is valid only when the contrary could not established by the accused.

The presumption of law refers to following offences under the ACT:

• Clause 1 of Section 20: In respect of any Trial of an Offence Punishable under Section 7, or Section 11,

• or Clause (a) or clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 13

To invoke this Section successfully with reference to the above offences, the prosecution must prove that any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing has been given or offered to be given or attempted to be given by an accused person, and if the prosecution proves accordingly, it shall be presumed- that unless the contrary is proved, that he gave or offered to give or attempted to give that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7, or as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-Sections (l) and (2), the court may decline to draw the presumption referred to in either of the said sub-sections, if the gratification or thing aforesaid is, in its opinion, so trivial that no interference of corruption may fairly be drawn.

"Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 makes it obligatory for the court to make certain presumptions against the accused. When it has been proved that the accused who is charged of an offence under Section 7 or 11 or 12 has received any gratification other than legal remuneration or any valuable thing without adequate consideration, the court is bound to presume under Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act that the gratification or the valuable thing was received with a motive or as a reward as is mentioned in Section 7, or for an inadequate consideration as is mentioned in Section 11 of the Act. All that the prosecution has to prove is the mere receipt of gratification or the valuable thing by the accused, for when receipt of such gratification or valuable thing is admitted by the accused, the prosecution is not required to prove affirmatively anything more to show that the gratification was received as a bribe or illegal gratification. If the accused wants to suggest that he had not accepted the gratification or the valuable thing with the motive or as a reward for exercising any official favour or disfavour, it would be for him to establish that.

To raise the presumption under Section 20 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution has to prove that the accused has received 'gratification other than legal remuneration'. When it is shown that the accused has received a certain sum of money, which was not his legal remuneration, the condition prescribed by the Section is satisfied and the presumption must be raised. Further mere receipt of 'money' is sufficient to raise the presumption (V.D. Jhingan Vs State of U.P., A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1672).

An impression may be created in some quarters that in view of the presumption under Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the task of prosecution has become very easy inasmuch as whenever receipt of money is proved, the authority deciding to launch a prosecution or great sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, need not concern itself with the probable defence of the accused person. Nothing could be further clarified that the burden of proof lying upon the accused under Section 20 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act will be satisfied if he establishes his case by a preponderance of probability as is done by a party in civil proceedings. It is not necessary that he should establish his case by the test of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, before launching prosecution one has to rule out a possibility of defence put up by the accused person which, if proved, may amount to preponderance of probability in his favour and it must be clearly understood that the quantum of proof expected of the accused is less than that expected from the prosecution which has to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court in Harbhajan Singh Vs State of Punjab has reiterated this principle thus "there is a consensus of judicial opinion in favour of the view that where the burden of an issue lies upon the accused, he is not required to discharge that burden by leading evidence to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. This, however, is the test prescribed while deciding whether the prosecution has discharged its onus of proving the guilt of the accused".

Under Section 20 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a similar presumption is to be made against the accused charged under Section 12 or 14(b) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as soon as it is proved that any valuable thing had been given or attempted to be given to a public servant.