Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved before the corruption presumption can operate.

Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved as foundational facts before the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act can arise. The complainant's account of the first demand contained omissions, the later demand lacked reliable independent corroboration, and the panch evidence did not clearly establish a bribe demand. Circumstances also supported the defence that the amount related to a government savings scheme, and the trap-stage negotiations created further doubt. Recovery alone was held insufficient without reliable proof of demand and voluntary acceptance, so the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) could not be sustained.

---

---

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

Analysis: The prosecution had to establish demand and acceptance as foundational facts before the presumption under Section 20 could arise. The complainant's version on the first demand suffered from omission, the later demand was not corroborated by reliable independent evidence, and the panch evidence did not clearly establish a demand for bribe. The surrounding circumstances also supported the defence that the amount was linked to a government savings scheme, and the evidence regarding negotiation at the trap stage created further doubt about the authenticity of the prosecution case. In such a prosecution, recovery alone is insufficient unless demand and voluntary acceptance are proved by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 arises only after the prosecution first proves the foundational facts of demand and acceptance by reliable evidence.

---