Demand of illegal gratification must be proved first; recovery alone cannot sustain corruption conviction without foundational evidence.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remains a foundational requirement for convictions under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes is insufficient to sustain guilt unless demand is proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and a presumption can arise only after foundational facts are established. Where the complainant and shadow witness turn hostile and the prosecution fails to prove demand, recovery evidence alone cannot establish the offence. The conviction and sentence were therefore held unsustainable, and acquittal followed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for corruption offences could be sustained when the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile and the prosecution failed to prove demand of illegal gratification.

Analysis: Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency notes, without proof of demand, is insufficient to sustain conviction. Where the complainant is hostile or unavailable, demand may still be proved through other direct or circumstantial evidence, but a presumption can arise only after foundational facts are established. On the evidence on record, the prosecution failed to prove demand, and the recovery evidence alone could not establish guilt.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were not sustainable and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

Ratio Decidendi: In corruption prosecutions, demand of illegal gratification must be proved as a foundational fact, and recovery of tainted money by itself does not establish guilt in the absence of proof of demand.

---