Proof of demand and acceptance is essential in bribery cases; mere recovery of tainted money will not sustain conviction.

In a bribery prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the Court stressed that proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted money is insufficient unless surrounding circumstances show voluntary acceptance with knowledge that it was a bribe. The complainant was not examined and no satisfactory explanation was given for that omission, leaving the prosecution case unsupported by reliable proof. Applying the settled rule on appeals against acquittal, the Court held that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and can be interfered with only when the findings are unjustified on the record; the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal in a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 called for interference in view of the non-examination of the complainant and the absence of reliable proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended on proof of demand and acceptance of bribe, but the complainant was not examined and no satisfactory explanation was offered for that omission. The evidence relied upon by the prosecution was considered in the light of the requirement that, in bribery cases, mere recovery of tainted money is not enough unless the surrounding circumstances establish voluntary acceptance knowing it to be bribe. The Court also applied the settled rule governing appeals against acquittal, namely that an acquittal strengthens the presumption of innocence and interference is warranted only when the findings are shown to be unjustified on the record.

Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

---