Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification may be proved circumstantially, triggering the statutory presumption under Section 20.

The deceased appellant, a government servant, was convicted by the Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced to one year’s rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹2,000 under Section 7 and three years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of ₹5,000 under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2), with sentences to run concurrently.

The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded ₹10,000 for releasing withheld salary and regularising leave, with ₹5,000 to be paid immediately and the balance later.

After a complaint and verification through a tape-recorded conversation, the Lokayukta conducted a trap on 29.02.2000. The complainant handed over ₹4,000 in phenolphthalein-treated currency notes, which were allegedly recovered from the appellant’s pocket; the chemical examination also yielded positive results.

The trial court convicted the appellant, who preferred the present appeal. During its pendency, he died on 22.06.2014, and his wife and two sons were permitted to continue the appeal as legal heirs.

1. Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification necessary for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, including through circumstantial evidence and the trap-recovery evidence.

2. Whether the conviction and sentences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) were legally unsustainable on the grounds that the appellant lacked authority over the complainant’s leave or salary, the tape-recorded conversation was not scientifically voice-verified, or the complainant had a motive for false implication.

3. Whether the appellant could be separately convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) for the same transaction.

The Court applied Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which respectively concern acceptance or obtaining of illegal gratification by a public servant and criminal misconduct by obtaining a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage through corrupt or illegal means.

Proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for conviction under these provisions; such facts may be established by direct oral or documentary evidence or by circumstantial evidence, as held by the Constitution Bench in Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi).

Upon proof of demand and acceptance, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act operates, unless rebutted by a plausible explanation.

The Court also relied on A. Karunanithi v. State and State by Lokayukta Police v. Sri K. Rangayya, which reaffirmed the necessity of proving demand and acceptance.

It held that Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)/13(2) create distinct offences and may support separate convictions even when arising from the same transaction.

The Court found the complainant’s testimony consistent on the appellant’s demand for ₹10,000 and his acceptance of ₹4,000, notwithstanding the absence of a completely explicit demand in the recorded conversation.

The tape recording and its transcription constituted corroborative circumstances, while the complainant’s oral evidence independently established the demand.

The panch witness and investigating officer supported the trap proceedings and confirmed recovery of the same currency notes from the appellant’s pocket.

The positive phenolphthalein and chemical examination results further corroborated acceptance.

The Court held that the absence of a voice sample did not displace the consistent oral and circumstantial evidence.

The defence evidence regarding the appellant’s authority over salary and leave, and the alleged animosity of the complainant, did not rebut the prosecution case or explain possession of the tainted money. Consequently, demand and acceptance were proved, triggering the unrebutted presumption under Section 20.

The Court further held that conviction under Section 7 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) was permissible because the statutory offences were separate and distinct.

It rejected the challenges based on the tape recording, alleged lack of official authority, prior animosity, and separate convictions.

The criminal appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.05.2002 were affirmed.