Mandatory presumption under Section 20, PC Act arises once acceptance is proved through reliable circumstantial evidence.

The Appellant, a Head Constable at Police Station Patel Nagar, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹300/- from the complainant (PW2) on April 3, 2000

The gratification was allegedly a reward for returning the Registration Certificate (RC) of PW2’s motorcycle, which the Appellant had retained following a theft investigation (FIR 296/1999)

PW2 lodged a complaint with the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB), leading to a pre-raid proceeding and a subsequent trap

During the trial, PW2 turned partially hostile, claiming another officer (Paltu Ram) initiated the demand, though he admitted the Appellant accepted the money

The panch witness (PW8) corroborated that the Appellant made an implied demand in the station corridor and accepted the tainted notes with his left hand

The trial court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, 1988, sentencing him to concurrent terms of rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year

1. Whether the prosecution established the foundational facts of "demand" and "acceptance" of illegal gratification beyond a reasonable doubt, given that the complainant turned partially hostile

2. Whether a clerical error in the trial record regarding the "hand wash" (referring to the right hand instead of the left, when the right was plastered) vitiated the recovery proceedings

3. Whether the mandatory legal presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act could be invoked against the accused

The court applied Sections 7 and 13 of the PC Act regarding the demand and acceptance of bribes by public servants

It relied on Neeraj Dutta v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2023), which establishes that proof of demand and acceptance are sine qua non for conviction

The court further utilized the principles from M. Narsinga Rao v. State of A.P. (2001), holding that Section 20 of the PC Act creates a mandatory legal presumption that once acceptance of money is proved, it is presumed to be illegal gratification unless rebutted

Finally, the court applied the doctrine that the testimony of a hostile witness need not be discarded in toto and can be relied upon where corroborated

The court determined that the foundational facts were sufficiently proven despite PW2’s partial hostility. While PW2 attributed the initial demand to another, the panch witness (PW8) provided direct evidence of an "implied demand" when the Appellant asked, "what has happened to what was settled between us"

The court held that the Appellant’s acceptance of the money with his left hand and its recovery from his shirt pocket, corroborated by the phenolphthalein test (which turned pink), established "acceptance"

Addressing the discrepancy regarding the plastered hand, the court clarified that the trial court’s reference to a "right-hand wash" was a mere clerical error, as the evidence consistently showed a left-hand wash was taken

The court found that the FSL report (Ext. PW11/B) and the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer (PW9) formed a complete chain of events

Consequently, since the accused failed to provide any plausible explanation for the possession of tainted notes, the mandatory presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act applied

The court held that the prosecution successfully proved both the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification through corroborated testimonial and scientific evidence

It ruled that minor inconsistencies or clerical errors in recording evidence do not invalidate a trap proceeding if the core foundational facts remain intact

The Appellant was ordered to undergo the remaining portion of his sentence