Illegal gratification conviction fails where contradictions undermine proof of demand and prevent invocation of the statutory presumption.

Conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act was found unsafe where the complainant, trap witnesses and the complainant's wife gave materially inconsistent accounts on the sequence of events, the accused's presence when the tainted money was placed, and the circumstances of recovery. Those contradictions went to the root of the prosecution case and undermined proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt. In the absence of reliable proof of demand, the statutory presumption under Section 20 could not be invoked against the accused. The conviction and sentence were therefore not sustainable, and acquittal followed on the benefit of doubt.

---

---

Issues: Whether the conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act was sustainable when the evidence on demand and acceptance of illegal gratification contained material contradictions and the statutory presumption was claimed to arise.

Analysis: The evidence of the complainant, the trap witnesses, and the complainant's wife was found to be inconsistent on the sequence of events, the presence of the accused when the tainted money was placed, and the circumstances of recovery. The contradictions went to the root of the prosecution case and made the alleged demand and acceptance unsafe to rely upon. In the absence of proof of demand beyond reasonable doubt, the presumption under Section 20 of the Act could not be invoked against the accused.

Conclusion: The conviction and sentence were not sustainable and the accused was entitled to acquittal on the basis of doubt.

---