Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification attract statutory presumption, with corroboration sustaining conviction despite partial witness hostility.

Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, if proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence, trigger the statutory presumption of culpability under the Prevention of Corruption Act, which the accused must rebut with cogent material. The complainant's evidence on initial and telephonic demand was accepted, and the absence of an independent witness to the call was treated as immaterial because the demand was made directly to the complainant. Partial hostility by the complainant did not displace his earlier supporting version, and the shadow witness, recovery of tainted money, and positive hand-wash test were treated as corroborative. The presumption was not rebutted, and the acquittal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal was unsustainable where the evidence established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and attracted the statutory presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The complainant's testimony was accepted on the initial demand and the subsequent telephonic demand, and the absence of an independent witness to the phone call was held immaterial because the demand was made directly to the complainant. The finding that there was no motive was rejected as perverse because the evidence showed that the demand was made to avoid future harassment. For the trap incident, the complainant's partial hostility did not efface his earlier supporting version, and the shadow witness's evidence was held reliable despite prior appearances in other cases. That evidence was corroborated by the recovery of tainted money, the positive hand-wash test, and the surrounding circumstances. Once demand and acceptance were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 arose and the accused failed to rebut it.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the respondent was held guilty of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, once demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence, the court must draw the statutory presumption under Section 20, which can be displaced only by cogent rebuttal.

---