Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved reliably; weak corroboration and doubtful recovery could not sustain conviction.

In a corruption prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the conviction depended on reliable proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. The complainant did not support the prosecution on material particulars and did not attribute any direct demand to the accused. The approver's evidence was found unreliable and insufficiently corroborated on the accused's presence and alleged direction to receive the money, while doubts over the recovery and handling of the taped conversation further weakened the case. In the absence of dependable proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked to sustain the conviction, and the accused was entitled to acquittal.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the appellant's demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The prosecution case depended on proof of demand, acceptance, and recovery. The complainant did not support the prosecution version in material particulars and did not attribute any direct demand to the appellant. The approver's testimony was found unreliable and not sufficiently corroborated on the crucial question of the appellant's presence and direction to receive the money. The evidence regarding recovery and the recording and handling of the taped conversation also created serious doubt. In the absence of reliable proof of demand and acceptance, the presumption under Section 20 could not be effectively invoked to sustain the conviction.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction and sentence could not be sustained and the appellant was entitled to acquittal.

---