Trap evidence and tainted money recovery can sustain corruption conviction when oral, scientific, and documentary proof consistently show demand and acceptance.

Recovery of tainted currency, supported by a positive phenolphthalein test and corroborative oral and documentary evidence, was treated as sufficient to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification in a trap prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court's reasons for disbelieving the prosecution case were found untenable because the evidence formed a consistent chain of circumstances. The Special Judge's appreciation of the evidence was held sound, and the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) was restored while the acquittal was set aside.

---

---

Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, despite the recovery of the bribe amount and corroborative trap evidence.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through the complainant and two independent witnesses. The recovery of the tainted currency notes from the respondent's pocket, the positive phenolphthalein test, and the supporting documentary and oral evidence formed a consistent chain of circumstances. The reasons given by the High Court for disbelieving the prosecution version were found to be untenable, and the trial court's appreciation of the evidence was held to be well founded.

Conclusion: The conviction recorded by the Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was restored and the High Court's order of acquittal was set aside, in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a trap prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, recovery of tainted money coupled with corroborative oral, scientific, and documentary evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, and an appellate court should not interfere on unsustainable conjectures.

---