Demand and acceptance are essential for corruption conviction; circumstantial suspicion alone cannot prove conspiracy or sustain guilt.

In a corruption prosecution, demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are the sine qua non for conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The HC found material contradictions in the complainant's account, unsafe recorded conversations, and trap witnesses who did not fully support the alleged demand; recovery alone was insufficient, so the conviction under Section 7 could not be sustained. On conspiracy, the Court held that circumstantial facts such as post-transfer assistance, meetings in another accused's office, and preparation of order-sheets did not prove an agreement or meeting of minds beyond reasonable doubt. The convictions and sentences were set aside and the accused were acquitted, with refund of any fine deposited.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the prosecution proved a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons to sustain conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved demand and acceptance of illegal gratification so as to sustain conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: Proof of demand and acceptance is the sine qua non for an offence under Section 7. The complainant's version contained material contradictions and improvements regarding the initial demand and the subsequent demand on the trap date. The recorded conversations were held unsafe to rely upon. The witnesses present in the trap proceedings did not fully support the alleged demand at the spot, and the evidence mainly established recovery from one accused, not a proved demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt. In these circumstances, the foundational facts necessary to invoke the statutory presumption were not satisfactorily proved.

Conclusion: The prosecution did not prove demand and acceptance beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction under Section 7 could not be sustained.

Issue (ii): Whether the prosecution proved a criminal conspiracy between the accused persons to sustain conviction under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: Criminal conspiracy may be inferred from circumstances, but the inference must rest on cogent evidence of agreement or meeting of minds. The fact that one accused continued to assist in the assessment matter after transfer, that he met the complainant in the office of the other accused, and that order-sheets were written by him did not by itself establish an unlawful agreement. The circumstances relied upon were treated as insufficient to prove concerted action beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion: The prosecution failed to establish criminal conspiracy, and the conviction under Section 120B read with Section 7 could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The convictions and sentences were set aside and the appellants were acquitted, with consequential refund of any fine deposited.

Ratio Decidendi: For conviction under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the prosecution must prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, and conspiracy cannot be inferred from suspicion or limited administrative assistance alone without proof of agreement to commit the offence.

---