Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved beyond recovery alone; conviction fails without reliable evidence.

Proof of demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification was found lacking, so the corruption conviction could not stand. The complainant was not examined, no satisfactory reason was given for that omission, and the remaining evidence did not establish demand. Trap and recovery evidence was treated as unreliable, and mere recovery of currency notes was held insufficient without credible proof of demand and acceptance. The presumption of corruption was also found inapplicable on the facts because the alleged gratification was trivial and the evidence did not justify an inference of guilt. The appellant was therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and whether the presumption under Section 20 of that Act could be drawn on the facts of the case.

Analysis: The demand for bribe was not proved by substantive evidence. The complainant was not examined, and no satisfactory explanation was offered for his non-examination. The testimony of the other witnesses did not establish the demand, and the evidence relied upon for trap and recovery was found to be unreliable. Mere recovery of currency notes, without credible proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, was held insufficient. The presumption under Section 20 was also found inapplicable on the facts, since the alleged gratification was trivial and the evidence did not justify drawing an inference of corruption. The prosecution was required to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence fell short of that standard.

Conclusion: The conviction could not be sustained. The appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.

---