Proof of demand is essential in corruption cases; mere recovery of tainted money cannot sustain conviction without reliable acceptance evidence.

In prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance. The presumption under Section 20 can arise only after acceptance is proved, and acceptance itself must be supported by clear evidence of demand. As the accompanying witness did not give legally acceptable evidence of demand and the complainant did not testify directly, the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was therefore unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: Demand of illegal gratification is an indispensable ingredient of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency, without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, does not by itself establish the offence. The presumption under Section 20 can arise only when acceptance is proved, and acceptance in turn must rest on proof of demand. The evidence of the accompanying witness did not reproduce a clear and legally acceptable demand, and the absence of the complainant's direct testimony left the prosecution case short of proof beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, an inferential finding of guilt was impermissible.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction could not be sustained; the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential, and mere recovery of tainted money without such proof is insufficient to sustain conviction.

---