Demand of illegal gratification must be proved in corruption cases; recovery alone cannot sustain conviction on a plausible defence version.

Interference with an acquittal is warranted only if the findings are perverse, contrary to evidence, patently illegal, or based on an erroneous view of law and fact; the strengthened presumption of innocence after acquittal also applies, so no interference was justified. In corruption prosecutions, demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved and the foundational facts for the statutory presumption are established; on the accepted defence version and the evidence of the witnesses, those ingredients were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, so the acquittal was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether interference with the acquittal was warranted on the evidence on record. (ii) Whether the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were proved when demand of illegal gratification was disputed and the defence version of the trap incident was accepted as plausible.

Issue (i): Whether interference with the acquittal was warranted on the evidence on record.

Analysis: Interference with an acquittal is justified only where the findings are perverse, contrary to evidence, patently illegal, or based on an erroneous understanding of law and facts. The appellate court must also keep in view the strengthened presumption of innocence that follows an acquittal.

Conclusion: Interference with the acquittal was not warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were proved when demand of illegal gratification was disputed and the defence version of the trap incident was accepted as plausible.

Analysis: Demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under the Act. Mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient unless demand and acceptance are proved, and the presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution establishes the foundational facts. The complainant's evidence, being that of an interested witness, required careful scrutiny, and the defence explanation that the phenolphthalein reaction could have occurred on handshake created a reasonable doubt. The evidence of the independent trap witness also did not satisfactorily establish the genesis of the transaction and acceptance of bribe.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt.

Final Conclusion: The acquittal was upheld because the prosecution did not establish the essential demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and no perversity was shown in the High Court's view.

Ratio Decidendi: In corruption cases, demand of illegal gratification must be proved as an essential ingredient, and recovery alone does not sustain conviction unless the foundational facts for the statutory presumption are established; an acquittal will be interfered with only if the view taken is perverse or manifestly illegal.

---