Corruption proof through demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money sustains conviction when the defence explanation fails.

Proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money, supported by trap proceedings, shadow witness evidence and a positive colour test, was treated as sufficient to establish offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. An unsupported claim that the amount represented a Karnataka Value Added Tax penalty did not rebut the statutory presumption under section 20, as the surrounding facts showed no lawful basis for receipt. Where the trial court's appreciation of evidence was found sound and no perversity or legal error was demonstrated, conviction and sentence were not disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the other ingredients of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt; (ii) Whether the conviction suffered from legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference; (iii) Whether the sentence required interference.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification and the other ingredients of the offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond reasonable doubt.

Analysis: The complainant and the shadow witness supported the prosecution case that the vehicle was detained, negotiations followed, the accused demanded Rs. 5 lakhs, and the tainted money was accepted and recovered from the accused's custody. The colour test was positive, and the surrounding evidence, including the trap proceedings and recovery, corroborated the oral testimony. The accused's explanation that the money was penalty amount under the Karnataka Value Added Tax Act, 2003 was found unsupported and insufficient to rebut the statutory presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also held that the facts did not show any plausible lawful basis for receipt of the amount at that stage.

Conclusion: The prosecution proved the ingredients of the offences under sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue (ii): Whether the conviction suffered from legal infirmity or perversity warranting interference.

Analysis: The court found that the trial court had appreciated the evidence correctly, including the complainant's testimony, the shadow witness, the recovery of tainted money, and the failure of the defence explanation. It held that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt and that no perversity or legal error was shown.

Conclusion: The conviction did not suffer from legal infirmity or perversity.

Issue (iii): Whether the sentence required interference.

Analysis: The sentence imposed for section 7 was below the statutory minimum, but no appeal for enhancement had been filed by the State. The sentence under section 13(1)(d) was also considered and no mitigating circumstances were shown to reduce it.

Conclusion: No interference with the sentence was warranted.

Final Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were affirmed and the appeal failed in entirety.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, proof of demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money, together with a failed explanation and positive trap evidence, is sufficient to sustain conviction and attract the statutory presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

---