Proof of demand is essential in corruption cases; mere recovery cannot sustain conviction and acquittal stood restored.

Sanction for prosecution was upheld where the file was routed through the departmental hierarchy, placed before the competent Minister, and approved, even though the sanction order did not list every supporting document. In a corruption prosecution, demand of illegal gratification remained indispensable under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; mere recovery of currency notes was insufficient without reliable proof of demand and conscious acceptance. Attendance material and witness evidence supported the defence version, while the complainant was not adequately corroborated and the shadow witness did not support the prosecution. The appellate court was therefore not justified in disturbing a reasonable acquittal, and the trial court's acquittal was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid; (ii) Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Issue (i): Whether the sanction for prosecution was valid.

Analysis: The sanction file was routed through the departmental hierarchy and placed before the competent Minister, who granted approval. The Under Secretary thereafter issued the sanction order in implementation of the Government's decision. The absence of detailed reference in the sanction order to each supporting document did not negate the existence of a valid sanction where the evidence showed that the competent authority had applied its mind and granted approval.

Conclusion: The sanction for prosecution was valid.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal.

Analysis: For an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand is essential, and mere recovery of currency notes does not by itself establish guilt. The defence version of absence from the office on the alleged date of demand was supported by attendance material and testimony of witnesses who placed the appellant in Bangalore for a seminar and related official work. The complainant's version was not sufficiently corroborated, while the shadow witness did not support the prosecution case and stated that the amount was said to be towards diesel expenses. In an appeal against acquittal, interference is unwarranted when the trial court has taken a reasonable possible view and the findings are neither perverse nor illegal.

Conclusion: The prosecution did not establish demand and conscious acceptance of illegal gratification, and the High Court was not justified in overturning the acquittal.

Final Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the High Court could not stand, and the acquittal granted by the trial court was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand of illegal gratification is indispensable, mere recovery is insufficient without reliable proof of demand and acceptance, and an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal based on a reasonable view of the evidence.

---