Proof of demand in corruption cases is essential; recovery of tainted money alone cannot sustain conviction.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is indispensable for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Mere recovery of tainted currency is not enough unless the prosecution establishes a reliable demand through credible evidence. Here, the complainant's version of repeated demands was treated as an improvement over his earlier statement, and the independent witness who was to accompany the trap did not enter the chamber. In the absence of reliable corroboration, the demand was held unproved, and the conviction and sentence were set aside with acquittal of the appellant.

---

---

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

Analysis: The offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 requires proof of both demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. Mere recovery of tainted currency, without reliable proof of demand, is insufficient to establish guilt. The evidence of the complainant regarding repeated demands was found to be an improvement over his earlier version, and the independent witness who was expected to accompany the complainant at the time of the trap did not enter the chamber. In the absence of reliable corroboration, the prosecution case on demand was held to be doubtful.

Conclusion: The demand of illegal gratification was not proved, and the conviction could not be sustained.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were set aside and the appellant was acquitted.

Ratio Decidendi: Proof of demand of illegal gratification is indispensable for establishing offences under Section 7 and allied provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and recovery of tainted money by itself does not suffice.

---