Demand of illegal gratification must be proved; mere recovery of tainted notes and hostile testimony are insufficient.

Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential in corruption prosecutions, and mere recovery of tainted currency notes is not enough by itself. Where the complainant turns hostile, retracts the allegation and the remaining evidence does not reliably establish demand or acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked. The presumption arises only after acceptance of illegal gratification is first proved, and acceptance cannot be inferred without proof of demand. In the stated case, the prosecution failed to establish these foundational facts, so the conviction and sentence were set aside and the accused was acquitted.

---

---

Issues: Whether conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act could be sustained when the complainant turned hostile and there was no reliable proof of demand of illegal gratification, despite recovery of tainted currency notes.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence did not establish the foundational fact of demand. The complainant retracted the complaint and denied the allegation of demand, and the remaining evidence did not prove that the accused had asked for or accepted illegal gratification as such. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes, by itself, was insufficient to prove the offences. The legal presumption under Section 20 could arise only after proof of acceptance of illegal gratification, and acceptance could not be inferred in the absence of proof of demand. Demand of illegal gratification is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 7, and the same deficiency also defeated the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2).

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were unsustainable and were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand of illegal gratification is essential to sustain conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the presumption under Section 20 cannot be drawn unless acceptance of illegal gratification is first established.

---