Corruption proof may rest on circumstantial and other reliable evidence even without the complainant's direct testimony.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remains essential for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, but that proof need not come only from the complainant's direct testimony. Where the complainant is unavailable, hostile, or has died, the prosecution may establish the foundational facts through other oral, documentary, or circumstantial evidence. Once acceptance or agreement to accept gratification is proved for Section 7, the statutory presumption under Section 20 may operate. The absence of the complainant does not defeat the prosecution if the remaining evidence proves guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether, in the absence of direct or primary evidence of the complainant regarding demand of illegal gratification, inferential deduction of guilt of a public servant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be drawn on the basis of other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Analysis: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii). Such proof may be given by oral or documentary evidence, and where direct evidence of the complainant is unavailable because of death, hostility, or non-availability, the prosecution may still establish the foundational facts through other witnesses or circumstantial evidence. The Court distinguished between a discretionary presumption of fact, which may arise from proved circumstances under the Evidence Act, and the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the Act, which operates once acceptance or agreement to accept gratification is proved for the offence under Section 7. The absence of the complainant does not by itself defeat the prosecution if the remaining evidence proves the relevant facts beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The question is answered in the affirmative. In the absence of the complainant's direct or primary evidence, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of guilt under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on the basis of other evidence adduced by the prosecution.

Final Conclusion: The earlier decisions were held to be reconcilable, and the reference was answered by affirming that conviction may rest on other reliable evidence and proven circumstances even when the complainant does not depose.

Ratio Decidendi: In corruption cases, demand and acceptance need not be proved only by the complainant's direct testimony; if foundational facts are otherwise established by admissible oral, documentary, or circumstantial evidence, the court may infer guilt and, where Section 7 is attracted, apply the statutory presumption under Section 20.

---