Illegal gratification precedent must fit the facts; conviction restored where demand, recovery, and corroboration were proved.

A precedent cannot be applied mechanically: the Court held that the High Court erred in treating an earlier ruling as controlling without first testing whether the facts were truly comparable. Where the prosecution evidence showed demand of illegal gratification, part payment, acceptance of the balance, recovery of tainted currency, and corroborative sodium carbonate test results, failure to prove one aspect of the narrative did not by itself require acquittal. The trial court's conviction and sentence were restored, and the acquittal set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction on the basis that one part of the prosecution version regarding demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was not proved, and whether the earlier decision relied upon by the High Court applied to the facts of the case.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on a demand of bribe, part payment, subsequent acceptance of the balance amount, recovery of the tainted currency, and positive sodium carbonate test. The earlier decision relied upon by the High Court did not lay down any universal rule that failure to prove one part of the prosecution story necessarily destroys the entire case even where demand, recovery, trap proceedings, and chemical test evidence are otherwise established. Judicial precedents must be applied only after examining whether the factual matrix is truly comparable, since observations in judgments are not to be read as statutory text and each case turns on its own facts.

Conclusion: The High Court erred in treating the earlier decision as controlling and in discarding the prosecution case on that basis. The acquittal was unsustainable and the conviction recorded by the trial court was restored.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the respondent's acquittal was set aside, resulting in restoration of the conviction and sentence passed by the trial court.

Ratio Decidendi: A precedent cannot be applied mechanically; where the essential prosecution evidence of demand, acceptance, recovery, and corroborative tests is established, failure to prove one aspect of the narrative does not by itself mandate acquittal unless the precedent relied upon is factually apposite.

---