Demand of illegal gratification is essential in corruption cases; mere recovery of tainted notes cannot sustain conviction.

In a corruption prosecution, conviction cannot rest on recovery of tainted currency alone; proof of demand for illegal gratification is essential, and acceptance must also be established. Where the complainant turns hostile and disowns the allegation, and no independent evidence proves demand, the charge fails. The absence of proof of demand is fatal to both the offence of illegal gratification and the allegation of abuse of official position to obtain pecuniary advantage. On these facts, the conviction and sentence were unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be sustained when the complainant did not support the allegation of demand and no independent evidence proved such demand.

Analysis: In a prosecution for corruption, proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential. The complainant turned hostile and disowned the complaint, and no other evidence established that the accused had demanded the amount. Recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused, by itself, was held insufficient to prove the offence. The rule applied was that absence of proof of demand is fatal both to the charge under the offence of illegal demand and to the charge based on abuse of official position to obtain pecuniary advantage.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence could not be sustained and were liable to be set aside.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not enough; proof of demand for illegal gratification is a prerequisite for conviction.

---