Corruption conviction upheld where demand and acceptance of bribe were proved by credible oral and documentary evidence.

Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved through the complainant, shadow witness and supporting witnesses, with trap proceedings, recovery of the bribe and the phenolphthalein test forming reliable corroboration. The Supreme Court treated the discrepancies relied on by the High Court as minor and explained by the delay in recording evidence, and held that they did not dislodge the prosecution case. Once demand and acceptance were established, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied, and the High Court erred in rejecting the evidence on hypertechnical grounds. The acquittal was set aside and the trial court conviction and sentence were restored.

---

---

Issues: Whether the prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt so as to sustain the conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's conviction and acquitting the accused.

Analysis: The prosecution evidence of the complainant, the shadow witness and supporting witnesses was found to establish the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount. The Court treated the discrepancies relied upon by the High Court as minor and attributable to the long delay between the trap and the depositions. It held that the documentary and oral evidence, including the trap proceedings and phenolphthalein test, were sufficient to prove the charges. The Court also held that the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act applied once demand and acceptance were proved, and that the High Court had erred in discarding reliable evidence on hypertechnical grounds.

Conclusion: The acquittal was set aside and the conviction and sentence recorded by the trial court were restored, as the charges under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 stood proved.

Ratio Decidendi: In a corruption prosecution, once demand and acceptance of illegal gratification are proved by credible oral and documentary evidence, minor inconsistencies do not displace the prosecution case, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 operates to sustain conviction.

---