Proof of demand in corruption cases remains essential; recovery alone cannot sustain conviction without reliable foundational evidence.

Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remain the foundational facts for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; recovery of tainted money and a phenolphthalein reaction cannot sustain conviction without reliable proof of demand. The analysis notes that the prosecution relied mainly on the complainant's version, but the alleged demand was weakened by delay in complaint, no convincing evidence of repeated pursuit, absence of the shadow witness, and the fact that other witnesses only repeated what the complainant said. On that reasoning, the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction could not be sustained.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The prosecution case rested mainly on the complainant's version, supported by the trap and recovery evidence. The Court found that the alleged demand was not reliably proved: there was a significant delay between the initial alleged demand and the complaint, no convincing evidence showed any repeated pursuit of demand, the independent shadow witness was unavailable, and the other witnesses only knew of the demand from the complainant. Recovery of tainted money and phenolphthalein reaction, by themselves, were held insufficient in the absence of proof of demand. The Court applied the settled principle that demand and acceptance are the foundational facts for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, and that any presumption cannot arise without such foundational proof.

Conclusion: The demand for illegal gratification was not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction could not be sustained.

---