Hon'ble Apex Court in A. Subair v. State of Kerala, JT 2009 (8) SC 415 observed that where the gratification is too trivial, not necessarily ought to be drawn is presumption. For the incident of April, 1989, presumption was not taken. In V. Venkata Subbarao v. State, (2007) 3 SCC (Cri)175, is held that in absence of proof of demand, question of raising presumption hardly arises and for such presumption, proof of demand is also relevant. In T.Subramanian v. State of T.N., (2006) 1 SCC (Cri) 401, is held that if reasonable probable explanation based on evidence is offered, then only on proof of receipt of money by the accused and in absence of proof of demand and acceptance, guilt is not established. Crucial question may also be as to whether the appellant demanded illegal gratification. Similar is also held and observed in 2005 SCC (Cr.)1508, Duraisami v. State of T.N. and in 1988 SCC (Cri.) 77, G.V.Nanjundiah v. State - that allegations are to be considered along with all other material circumstances. In 2009 (6) SCC 462, Subbu Singh v. State, it is held that when demand and taking of bribe money is proved, then presumption can be and then it is for the accused to establish contrary (2009) 3 SCC 779, C.M.Girish Babu v. CBI, Cochin, is held that when substantive evidence not reliable, then mere recovery of tainted money, in absence of evidence of payment and voluntary acceptance, cannot be held guilty. Payment of bribe and acceptance it to be knowing such, is to be proved. Also is held that burden of proof under Section 20 is not same as the burden on prosecution to prove its case. In (2009) 15 SCC 200, State of Maharashtra v Dynaneshwar Laxman Roa Wankhede, is observed that demand is sine qua non and while arriving conclusions, facts and circumstances appearing on record, all are to be considered and before the accused is called to explain, foundational facts are to be established by the prosecution. Burden of proof for rebuttal for presumption is not the same as the burden on prosecution to prove case
