Corroborated proof of illegal gratification sustained conviction, with statutory presumption unrebutted and acquittal reversal left undisturbed.

Corroborated evidence of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, including trap proceedings, recovery of tainted currency notes, panchnama and documentary record, sustained the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant's later departure in cross-examination did not discredit the earlier consistent evidence establishing demand and acceptance. Once acceptance of gratification was proved, the presumption under Section 20(1) operated, and the accused failed to rebut it. The High Court's reversal of acquittal was found not to raise two reasonably possible views, so interference was unwarranted. The conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) were upheld.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences relating to demand and acceptance of illegal gratification under the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable and whether the reversal of acquittal by the High Court called for interference.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant, the panch witnesses, the trap proceedings, the recovery of tainted currency notes, the panchnama, and the supporting documentary record were found to corroborate each other. The Court held that the complainant's later departure in cross-examination did not displace the earlier consistent evidence of demand and acceptance. It further held that once acceptance of gratification was proved, the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 operated, and the accused failed to rebut it. The Court also found that the case did not present two possible views warranting restoration of the acquittal.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 were upheld and no interference was warranted.

---