Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification proved; statutory presumption applied, and minimum corruption sentence could not be reduced under Article 142.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was essential to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere recovery of tainted currency was insufficient, but the trap evidence, shadow witness testimony, recovery from the accused, and other unshaken material established both demand and acceptance, so the statutory presumption under Section 20 operated and was not rebutted. The minimum sentence could not be reduced under Article 142 because the Court held that its equitable power cannot override an express statutory mandate prescribing minimum punishment, particularly in corruption offences. The convictions and sentences were therefore left undisturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) whether the minimum sentence could be reduced on mitigating considerations by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Issue (i): whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: Mere recovery of tainted currency was held insufficient by itself, but the surrounding evidence, including the trap evidence, the shadow witness, the recovery from the appellants, and the unshaken material on record, established both demand and acceptance. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arose once acceptance was proved, and the appellants failed to rebut it on a preponderance of probability by any credible explanation.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld in favour of the prosecution, and the appellants failed on the merits of the corruption charge.

Issue (ii): whether the minimum sentence could be reduced on mitigating considerations by invoking Article 142 of the Constitution of India.

Analysis: The sentence imposed was the minimum prescribed by statute. The Court held that its equitable power under Article 142 cannot be used to override or dilute an express statutory mandate prescribing minimum punishment, particularly in corruption offences where legislative policy requires strict enforcement.

Conclusion: The request for reduction of sentence was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were left undisturbed, and the appeals failed in their entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In corruption cases, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential, recovery alone is not enough, and once acceptance is shown the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 operates unless rebutted; Article 142 cannot be invoked to reduce a statutorily mandated minimum sentence in a manner inconsistent with the statute.

---