Proof of demand and acceptance remains essential in corruption cases; acquittal stands where evidence supports the accused's version.

Proof of demand and acceptance is essential to establish offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and Section 20 cannot operate without foundational evidence of those elements. Where the complainant departs materially from the complaint and the record contains inconsistencies on demand, pending official work, conversation recording, and the shadow witness's role, the alleged illegal gratification is not reliably proved. An appellate court interferes with an acquittal only if the view taken is perverse or unreasonable; if two views are possible and the one favouring the accused is supported by the record, the acquittal is not to be disturbed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the prosecution proved the demand, acceptance and recovery necessary to establish offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. (ii) Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court suffered from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Issue (i): Whether the prosecution proved the demand, acceptance and recovery necessary to establish offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Analysis: The complainant did not fully support the prosecution version and materially departed from the complaint allegations. The evidence showed inconsistencies regarding the alleged demand, the pending official work, the alleged recording of conversation, and the role of the shadow witness. The alleged demand of illegal gratification was not reliably proved, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 could not operate effectively in the absence of foundational proof of demand and acceptance.

Conclusion: The issue was answered against the prosecution and in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the acquittal recorded by the trial court suffered from perversity or legal infirmity warranting interference in appeal.

Analysis: An appellate court interferes with an acquittal only when the finding is unreasonable or perverse. On reappreciation of the evidence, two views were possible and the view favourable to the accused was supported by the record. The trial court's appreciation of the contradictions and deficiencies in proof did not disclose any compelling ground for reversal.

Conclusion: The acquittal did not call for interference and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The prosecution failed to prove the corruption charges to the required standard, and the acquittal remained undisturbed.

Ratio Decidendi: In a prosecution for corruption, proof of demand and acceptance is essential, and an appellate court will not disturb an acquittal where the evidence reasonably supports the view favourable to the accused.

---