Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification triggered the statutory presumption, and the conviction was restored.

In a corruption prosecution, the Supreme Court held that proof of mere recovery is insufficient by itself, but demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were established here through eyewitness, trap witness and phenolphthalein evidence. Once demand and acceptance were proved, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose, and the accused failed to rebut it on a preponderance of probabilities with reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The alibi and false-implication defence were found unsupported. The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the acquittal was unsustainable in view of the evidence proving demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the unrebutted statutory presumption.

Analysis: The evidence of the eyewitnesses and the trap witnesses established that the accused demanded and accepted the tainted amount, and the recovery from the office drawer was corroborated by the phenolphthalein test. The Court held that proof of mere recovery is not enough by itself, but in the present case the prosecution had proved both demand and acceptance. Once this was shown, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arose, and the accused failed to rebut it by reliable direct or circumstantial evidence. The defence version, including the plea of alibi and the suggested false implication, was found unsupported.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence were restored, in favour of the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, when demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved by reliable evidence and recovery is corroborated, the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act operates unless rebutted by the accused on a preponderance of probabilities.

---