Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification sustains conviction; evidentiary omissions were not fatal.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification remained the decisive factor under the Prevention of Corruption Act, with the complainant, decoy witness and trap laying officer giving mutually corroborative evidence on the material facts. Scientific evidence also supported the prosecution case. Objections based on non-marking of the white cover and non-display of the micro chip were treated as non-fatal, because they were only evidentiary omissions and did not undermine the core proof of bribery. The conviction was therefore sustained on the basis that both demand and acceptance had been proved.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, despite objections regarding non-marking of the white cover and non-display of the micro chip.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant, the decoy witness and the trap laying officer was found mutually corroborative on the material aspects of demand and acceptance of bribe. The scientific evidence also supported the prosecution case. The omissions relied on by the appellant were held not to be fatal, as they were only items of evidence and did not dislodge the core proof of demand and acceptance.

Conclusion: The conviction was upheld because the prosecution had proved both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

---