DHANVANTRAI BALWANTRAI DESAI vs STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, affirming that the presumption under Section 4 of the Act was correctly raised as the appellant accepted gratification beyond legal remuneration. The Court clarified that the burden of rebutting this presumption is heavier than that under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, requiring the accused to provide proof supporting their explanation. The appellant's claim that the money was for temple repairs was deemed insufficient to rebut the presumption, leading to the affirmation of his conviction.