Failure to prove demand and reliable recovery defeats a corruption conviction and the Section 20 presumption.

The appellant, a Head Constable, was prosecuted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

The prosecution alleged that he demanded money to execute a warrant against Manjula, accepted Rs.100 initially, and later demanded and accepted the remaining Rs.900 near the court canteen on 20 August 2009

The trial court convicted him and imposed terms of imprisonment and fines

On appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC, the High Court reviewed the conviction and the evidence concerning demand, acceptance, recovery, and the alleged electronic recording

1. Whether the trial court’s conviction and sentence suffered from perversity or material illegality warranting appellate interference

2. Whether the prosecution proved the alleged demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt, including whether the evidence of recovery and the electronic recording reliably supported the charge

The Court considered Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the prosecution’s burden to prove the essential elements of the alleged corruption offences beyond reasonable doubt

It applied the principle that recovery or possession of tainted currency, without proof of demand, is insufficient to establish the charged offences; the Court also held that the Section 20 presumption could not assist the prosecution where the foundational facts had not been proved

For the mobile-phone recording, the Court considered the certificate requirement under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act

The prosecution did not produce the warrant or other adequate material establishing that the appellant had been entrusted with its execution, and the investigating officer had not collected evidence showing that the appellant received it for that purpose. The Court therefore found the alleged motive and demand insufficiently established

The mobile recording lacked the required Section 65B(4) certificate, and the prosecution had not collected the complainant’s mobile chip

The trap mahazar was prepared at the Lokayukta office rather than at the place of the alleged acceptance, despite the Court finding that suitable space was available at the court premises; in the circumstances, this cast doubt on the alleged seizure, particularly given the defence that the complainant had put the money in the appellant’s pocket

The Court also found the complainant’s testimony unreliable in light of inconsistencies and the trial court’s observation about his demeanour

Taken together, these deficiencies left reasonable doubt about demand and acceptance, so the Section 20 presumption was unavailable

It directed the trial court to refund the amount deposited by the appellant upon proper identification