Illegal gratification must be proved by clear demand and acceptance before conviction can stand under anti-corruption law.

Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are foundational facts for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence only where the proved circumstances unerringly point to a specific demand. Mere recovery of currency notes or a bare request for money is insufficient, and the Section 20 presumption arises only after those basic facts are established. On the record, the shadow witness did not prove a specific demand in his presence and the surrounding circumstances created serious doubt, so the prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction could not stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether, on the evidence led by the prosecution, demand of illegal gratification and its acceptance were proved so as to sustain conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The demand of illegal gratification is a foundational fact for offences under Section 7 and clauses (i) and (ii) of Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The prosecution may prove such demand and acceptance by direct evidence or, in the absence of direct evidence, by circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances relied upon must be fully proved and must lead only to the inference that a demand for gratification was made. Mere recovery of currency notes or a bare request for money is not enough. The presumption under Section 20 arises only after the basic facts of demand and acceptance are proved. On the record, the evidence of the shadow witness did not establish a specific demand of gratification in his presence, and the surrounding circumstances created serious doubt about the prosecution version.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt; the conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) could not stand.

Ratio Decidendi: In prosecutions under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are essential facts in issue and may be proved by circumstantial evidence, but only where the proved circumstances unerringly establish the demand; without proof of those foundational facts, the statutory presumption under Section 20 cannot be invoked.

---