The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the accused to rebut the presumption of accepting gratification under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 with a supported explanation.

This appeal is filed by the accused who at the relevant time was working as Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) at Vasco-da-Gama against Judgment dated 22-1-2010 in Special Case No.6 of 2009 by which the accused has been convicted and sentenced under Section 13(2) r/w Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.10,000/- on 30-5-2003 from Bhandari Chandrasekhar, Proprietor of M/s J.C.S. Associates, Fatorda, Goa, for the purpose of issuance of licences which he had applied for on 7-5-2003 under the Building and Other Construction Workers (Regulation of Employment and Conditions of Service) Act, 1996 and the Rules framed thereunder.

2. The complaint against the accused was filed by the said Shri Bhandari Chandrasekhar who was examined as PW1 and the raid was conducted by PW6/CBI Police Inspector Shri Bhalchandra M. Chonkar. The raid was witnessed by Ranjeet Thakur and Shri Karapurkar, both Officers of Bank of India, Panaji, the former having been examined as PW2. The prosecution has examined in all eight witnesses, the last being PW8/CBI Dy. S.P. Shri F. B. Karna who had continued with and completed the investigations.

3. The accused had examined his successor Shri Karamchandra as DW1 and had examined himself as DW2, and it was the case of the accused, as can be seen from his evidence, that on 30-5-2003 he had gone to Saleli in Sattari Taluka for inspection and had returned home at 22.30 hours and was preparing to retire to bed when he heard the door bell ring and his wife answered the call. There were two unexpected visitors and he was surprised to see them. One of whom was PW1/Chandrashekar Bhandari who told him that he had filed two applications in his Office which were pending for processing and the accused told him that he should follow it up in the Office. PW1/Bhandari then made a request for some cold water and he was about to tell his wife to bring a glass of water when PW1/Bhandari pushed something in his shirt pocket and in the meantime the stranger who was along with him went out and brought some more people. He put his hand in his pocket to find out what was pushed inside by PW1/Bhandari when someone who had entered his house held his hand and he asked the person who held his hand their identity when it was disclosed that they were from the CBI; He tried to explain to them but they were not ready to listen to him; Someone from the group removed something from his pocket and when he saw he found it was cash. He was placed under arrest. He was released on bail on 4-6-2003, and then he wrote a letter to the Secretary, Ministry of Labour dated 10-6-2003.

4. By the said letter, the accused, inter alia, informed the Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi, that he was not aware how much money they had put in his pocket and the CBI Officers were not ready to listen to his request and they pressurized him to take the money with his own hand and thereafter they searched his entire house and seized some money which was to be paid to the builder regarding his Dona Paula house which he had recently purchased. There is no dispute that there is another case pending against the accused for having disproportionate assets in connection with the said money found in the house.

5. The learned Special Judge after considering the evidence produced by the prosecution came to the conclusion that the CBI had levelled and proved the charges against the accused of taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act under direct evidence of PW1/Bhandari and PW2/Thakur and corroborating evidence of PW3/Sadanand, PW6/P.I.Chonkar, PW8/Dy.S.P. Karna and DW1/Karamchandra and thus the prosecution had established that the accused being a public servant was found taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of his official act. The learned Special Judge also held that the evidence of PW4/Sehgal showed tha