Corruption conviction stands where demand and acceptance are proved despite a claimed tax-payment explanation.

The appellant, a Village Assistant, was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding ₹5,000 from PW1 to remit land tax and accepting it during a vigilance trap.

The appellant argued that the demand was unproved and that the money recovered was for tax and a welfare-fund contribution.

The prosecution relied principally on PW1’s evidence, corroboration by the trap witness PW2, and the recovery and phenolphthalein evidence.

The appeal challenged the conviction and sentence.

1. Whether the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act

2. Whether the appellant committed the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act

3. Whether the conviction or sentence required appellate interference

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii), read with Section 13(2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Under Neeraj Dutta v. State (AIR 2023 SC 330), proof of demand and acceptance or obtainment of illegal gratification is necessary to establish the relevant offences; those facts may be proved by direct or circumstantial evidence, and a court may draw a factual inference from proved foundational facts.

For a Section 7 offence, Section 20 requires a rebuttable legal presumption once the facts in issue are proved; that presumption does not apply to Section 13(1)(d)(i)–(ii).

The Court also referred to Sunil Kumar K. v. State of Kerala, [2025 KHC OnLine 983], which reiterates that proof of demand is essential and recovery alone is insufficient.

The Court accepted PW1’s consistent evidence that the appellant demanded ₹5,000 on earlier occasions and again during the trap.

PW2 corroborated that the appellant took the treated ₹5,000 and put it in his pocket, while PW6 testified to hearing a telephone conversation in which the appellant demanded the money.

The Court rejected the defence that the ₹5,000 was for tax and welfare-fund contributions: Ext.P2 recorded tax of ₹3,017, and PW1 denied paying the additional ₹275.

PW1’s account that the tax amount was paid separately from the bribe was corroborated by PW2; the treated notes were recovered from the appellant’s pocket and tested positive.

The Court therefore found demand and acceptance proved, and the tax-receipt evidence did not rebut the prosecution case.

It dismissed the appeal and confirmed the conviction and sentences of three years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹50,000 fine under Section 7, and four years’ rigorous imprisonment and ₹50,000 fine under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d), with the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

The suspension of sentence and bail were vacated, and the appellant was directed to appear before the Special Court to undergo sentence.