Demand and acceptance of illegal gratification must be proved; recovery alone cannot sustain conviction.

The appellant, an Assistant in the District Education Office, was accused of demanding ₹5,000 from a newly appointed orderly for release of his salary. The complainant reported the demand to the Vigilance Bureau; a trap was laid, and ₹5,000 was later recovered from beneath the appellant’s pillow at his residence. No witness saw the alleged demand or the handing over of the money.

The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act), and the High Court affirmed the conviction. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court

Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, essential to the offences charged under the PC Act

Whether recovery of the alleged bribe money, without proof of demand and acceptance, could sustain the appellant’s conviction

Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and (ii) of the PC Act, proof of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt; the prosecution must prove those facts as matters in issue. Mere recovery or possession of alleged tainted money, without proof of demand, is insufficient for conviction.

The Court applied P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P., (2015) 10 SCC 152; Neeraj Dutta v. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 4 SCC 731; Aman Bhatia v. State, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1013; and Jaswinder Singh v. State of Punjab, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1952

The complainant’s account of the demand and payment was uncorroborated. Although the money was recovered from the appellant’s residence and the hand-wash solution turned pink, no witness saw the appellant demand or accept the money.

The witnesses gave inconsistent accounts of where the transaction occurred and how the appellant was apprehended; some also stated that they signed seizure documents at the vigilance officials’ direction. Applying the settled rule that recovery alone cannot prove the charge, the Court held that the prosecution had not established demand and acceptance

It allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments of the Special Judge and the High Court, and cleared the appellant of the charges.