Demand of illegal gratification is essential under the Prevention of Corruption Act; recovery alone cannot sustain conviction.

Proof of demand of illegal gratification is an indispensable element for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Where the complainant does not support the prosecution on demand and the panch witness gives no specific evidence of such demand, conviction cannot rest on recovery of tainted currency alone or on a positive phenolphthalein test. The Court further noted that alleged contradictions in the complainant's earlier statement were not proved in the manner required by law, and that hostile testimony can be relied on only to the extent it remains trustworthy and is corroborated by independent evidence. On these facts, the prosecution failed to establish demand and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could be sustained in the absence of reliable proof of demand of illegal gratification.

Analysis: The conviction required proof that the accused demanded and accepted illegal gratification. The complainant did not support the prosecution on the essential aspect of demand, and the panch witness did not depose to any specific conversation establishing such demand. Mere recovery of tainted currency and a positive phenolphthalein test were held insufficient by themselves. The Court also noted that the contradictions attributed to the complainant's earlier statement were not proved in the manner required by law, and that a hostile witness's testimony can be relied upon only to the extent it remains trustworthy and is corroborated by other reliable evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification, so the conviction could not stand and the appellant was entitled to relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand of illegal gratification is an indispensable requirement for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and mere recovery of tainted money without such proof is insufficient to sustain conviction.

---