Demand and voluntary acceptance of bribe must be proved; compelled payer is not an accomplice requiring automatic corroboration.

Demand of illegal gratification remains an essential ingredient in a corruption prosecution, and mere recovery of tainted currency is insufficient unless voluntary acceptance as a bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt. On the evidence of the contractor, shadow witness and trap officer, supported by the sodium carbonate test and surrounding circumstances, the demand and acceptance were established and the conviction was sustained. A person compelled to pay illegal gratification is not an accomplice in law merely because payment occurred in a trap case; corroboration is required only where the witness is otherwise unreliable. The contractor's testimony was adequately corroborated and did not fail for want of corroboration.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the evidence on record established demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; (ii) whether the contractor who paid the bribe was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration in material particulars.

Issue (i): Whether the evidence on record established demand and voluntary acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: Demand of illegal gratification is essential for the offence. Mere recovery of tainted currency, by itself, is insufficient unless the prosecution proves beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and voluntarily accepted the money as a bribe. On the evidence of the contractor, the shadow witness, and the trap officer, the demand was made after the shadow witness was asked to leave the chamber and the money was then handed over and accepted. The sodium carbonate test and recovery from the appellant's person and office circumstances supported the prosecution version. The evidence was not inherently improbable and furnished corroboration in material particulars.

Conclusion: The ingredients of the offences were proved, and the conviction was rightly sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the contractor who paid the bribe was an accomplice whose evidence required corroboration in material particulars.

Analysis: A person compelled to pay illegal gratification is not a partner in crime or associate in guilt. Such a witness is not to be treated as an accomplice merely because money was paid in the course of a trap case. Corroboration is required only where the witness is not wholly reliable. Here, the contractor's version was supported by the shadow witness and the trap evidence, so the testimony did not stand alone as uncorroborated evidence of an accomplice.

Conclusion: The contractor was not an accomplice in law, and his evidence did not fail for want of corroboration.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on merits because the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and the concurrent findings of guilt were left undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a bribery prosecution, demand of illegal gratification and voluntary acceptance must be proved, but a person compelled to pay the bribe is not an accomplice whose evidence invariably requires corroboration.

---