A presumption of law cannot be rebutted merely by raising a probability, however reasonable, that the actual fact is the reverse of the fact which is presumed.

Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : In this appeal by special leave from the judgment of the High Court of Bombay affirming the conviction and sentences passed on the appellant in respect of offences under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (2 of 1947) read with S. 5(2) thereof, the only point urged is that the presumption raised against the appellant under S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be held to have been rebutted by the explanation given by him inasmuch as that explanation was both reasonable and probable.

2. In order to appreciate the contention it is necessary to state certain facts.

3. In the year 1954 the appellant was appointed Resident Engineer for Light Houses and posted to Bombay. He was due to retire in January, 1955 but he was given extensions from time to time. The complainant, M. M. Patel (who will hereafter be referred to as the complainant) is a building contractor. It was proposed to re-construct a light house at Tolkeshwar Point which is situate on the West Coast, somewhere between Rantnagiri and Karwar. The complainant submitted a tender for the construction on March 21, 1956. That tender was accepted on June 30, 1956 and a work order was issued to him. The general conditions governing the contract are contained in the set of papers inviting tenders.

4. The complainant commenced the work in November, 1956. It would appear that the overseer supervising the work was not satisfied with the manner in which the contractor was carrying on the work. As a result, in December, 1956, the appellant had to bring the fact to the complainant s notice and warn him to carry out the work according to the specifications contained in the notice inviting tenders.

5. It may be mentioned that just near the place where the light house was being constructed, there is a temple of Tolkeshwar. Attached to that temple there is a small dharmshala. There is also a well near the dharmshala, and that well is the only convenient source of water supply to the neighbourhood. At the relevant time the water in it was up to a depth of six feet. In the year 1957 the appellant wrote a letter to the trustee of the temple asking his permission to take water from that well for supplying it to the Government staff. The idea was to set up a pump in the well and lay out a pipeline leading up to the staff quarters. In reply to the letter Mr. Gole, who was the trustee, wrote that if this was done the water in the well will run out in a short time. He therefore, suggested that the well be deepened and added: "However, the trustees have no objection to the Government s intention of laying out a pipeline from the well provided arrangements are made for supply of water to the temple and the small dharmsala nearby". It is not clear whether a pump was set up by the Government and a pipeline laid out. But it is an admitted fact that the well has not been deepened . "It is also admitted that the contractor uses the well water for carrying on his work without obtaining any express permission of the trustee and by the time he finished the work the water level had gone down to a little below two feet.

6. According to the complaint in February, 1957 the appellant had paid a visit to Tolkeshwar and during his visit he told the complainant "to behave like other contractor s evidently suggesting that he should also pay him certain percentage of his bills as a bribe. It is sufficient to say that both the courts have found that the appellant did not visit Tolkeshwar in February, 1957 but the High Court has held that the appellant did make a demand for bribe in June, 1957 when he visited Tolkeshwar and that the complainant has made a mistake regarding the date on which the bribe was demanded. On March 26, 1957 one Bhatia was posted as Overseer there and though on March 30, 1957, a cheque for Rs. 7,278 odd was given to the complainant on his first running bill, Bhatia made a complaint to the appellant on April 2, 1957 that t