Illegal gratification requires proof of demand and acceptance; probable alternative explanation supported acquittal.

In a corruption prosecution, mere recovery of money from a public servant is insufficient; the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. The appellant promptly explained that the amount was received towards temple lease arrears, and the record supported that explanation through admitted arrears, prior hostility between the parties, and the absence of clear proof of bribe demand. On appeal against acquittal, interference is justified only where guilt is the sole possible conclusion. As two views were reasonably open on the evidence, the trial court's finding that the charge was not proved was not perverse, and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded and accepted Rs. 200 as illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, or whether the explanation that the amount was received towards temple lease arrears displaced the charge.

Analysis: Mere receipt of money by a public servant does not by itself establish the offence unless demand and acceptance as illegal gratification are proved. The appellant gave an immediate explanation that the amount was paid on behalf of a lessee towards lease arrears due to the temple, and the record showed circumstances supporting that explanation, including admitted arrears by the lessee, prior hostility between the complainant group and the appellant, and the absence of clear evidence that the payment was made as a bribe. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted only when the evidence leads to a sole conclusion of guilt. On the same evidence, two views were reasonably possible, and the trial court's view that the charge was not proved was not shown to be perverse.

Conclusion: The conviction was unsustainable. The appellant was entitled to acquittal, and the prosecution failed to establish the offence of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, conviction cannot rest on mere recovery of money; demand and acceptance as illegal gratification must be proved, and where the accused offers a probable explanation supported by the record, the charge fails if the evidence reasonably admits another view.

---