Demand of illegal gratification is essential in corruption cases; mere recovery of tainted currency cannot sustain conviction.

In prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable, and mere recovery of tainted currency does not by itself establish guilt or activate the Section 20 presumption. The evidence here was found unreliable because the alleged earlier payment was vague and uncorroborated, the supporting witness was not examined, and the trap evidence contained material inconsistencies on the place and manner of the transaction. On that basis, the conviction and sentence were held unsustainable and were set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The conviction for corruption offences can be sustained only when the prosecution establishes demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance or recovery in a manner that satisfies the statutory ingredients. Mere recovery of tainted currency is not enough unless the foundational fact of demand is proved. On the evidence, the alleged earlier payment was vague and uncorroborated, the date and circumstances were uncertain, the alleged supporting witness was not examined, and the trap evidence itself contained material inconsistencies regarding the place and manner of the transaction. The alleged query whether money had been brought could not, by itself, amount to a legally proved demand. In the absence of reliable proof of demand, the presumption under Section 20 could not arise.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction and sentence were unsustainable.

Final Conclusion: The judgment under appeal was set aside and the appellant succeeded on the merits because the essential ingredients of the corruption offences were not established.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable, and mere recovery of currency notes without reliable proof of demand cannot sustain a conviction or trigger the presumption under Section 20.

---