Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification sustain corruption conviction; statutory presumption applies unless the accused rebuts it.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to sustain a corruption conviction, and once those facts are established the statutory presumption operates unless rebutted by the accused. The court accepted the complainant and trap witnesses as proving demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted currency, and rejected objections based on the accused's work allotment, the conduct of the preliminary enquiry, and the absence of local witnesses. It held that a preliminary enquiry is not a substantive stage of proof and that search of a person does not require local witnesses in the same manner as a closed-place search. The conviction was affirmed, while the sentence was modified.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act for demand and acceptance of illegal gratification was sustainable, and whether the sentence required modification.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the complainant and the trap witnesses was accepted as proving demand, acceptance, and recovery of tainted currency. The objections regarding the accused's official allotment of work, the manner of preliminary enquiry, and the absence of local witnesses were rejected as not affecting the core prosecution case. It was held that preliminary enquiry is not a substantive stage of proof, that search of the person does not require local witnesses in the same manner as a closed-place search, and that once demand and acceptance are proved, the statutory presumption applies unless rebutted. The defence did not displace that presumption. On sentence, the Court considered the nature of the offence, the length of litigation, and the amount involved.

Conclusion: The conviction was affirmed. The sentence was modified to six months' simple imprisonment under Section 7 and one year's simple imprisonment under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, with fine as directed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upholds the finding of corruption on proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, while reducing the sentence to the extent indicated.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential for sustaining conviction, and once those facts are established, the statutory presumption operates unless rebutted by the accused.

---