Bribery conviction requires proof of both demand and acceptance; recovery from a co-accused did not prove acceptance here.

A conviction for bribery requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Where the prosecution's case depends on an alleged conspiracy linking the accused to receipt of the bribe through another person, failure to prove that conspiracy undermines the corruption charge. Here, the conspiracy charge failed, the co-accused's acquittal had attained finality, and the alleged bribe money was recovered from the co-accused rather than directly accepted by the appellant. On that record, acceptance by the appellant was not established, and the corruption conviction could not stand. The appellant was therefore entitled to acquittal on the corruption charges.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether acquittal of the accused on the charge of criminal conspiracy required acquittal on the corruption charges as well. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused so as to sustain conviction under the corruption law.

Issue (i): Whether acquittal of the accused on the charge of criminal conspiracy required acquittal on the corruption charges as well.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested on an alleged conspiracy between the accused and the co-accused for demanding and receiving illegal gratification. The charge of conspiracy was not proved, and both accused were acquitted of that charge. The co-accused was also acquitted of all charges under the corruption law, and that acquittal had attained finality. In these circumstances, the remaining conviction against the appellant could not be sustained on a theory that depended on the same alleged conspiracy.

Conclusion: The issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused so as to sustain conviction under the corruption law.

Analysis: To attract liability under the corruption law, the prosecution had to prove both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The record showed, at best, a demand, but the money was not accepted directly by the appellant and was recovered from the co-accused. Once the conspiracy theory failed, the recovery from the co-accused could not be treated as proof of acceptance by the appellant. The essential ingredient of acceptance by the appellant was therefore not established.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove acceptance of bribe money by the appellant, and the conviction could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal on the corruption charges.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction for bribery cannot be sustained unless the prosecution proves both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and where the charge of conspiracy linking the accused to receipt through another person fails, recovery from that other person does not by itself establish acceptance by the accused.

---